Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)

YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL (By Order)

CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL (By Order)

FALMOUTH CONTAINER TERMINAL BILL (By Order)

NORTH KILLINGHOLME CARGO TERMINAL BILL (By Order)

ST. GEORGE'S HILL, WEYBRIDGE, ESTATE BILL (By Order)

SAINT BENNET FINK BURIAL GROUND (CITY OF LONDON) BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [10 December], That the Bill be now considered.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 14 April.

SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 14 April.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming debate on Question [15 March], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate to be resumed upon Thursday 14 April.

BRITISH RAILWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Iran-Iraq War

Mr. Temple-Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current situation at the United Nations concerning his efforts to secure action to help bring the Iran-Iraq war to an end; and what representations have been received on this subject by (a) the Secretary-General of the United Nations and (b) Her Majesty's Government from the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The recent deplorable escalation in the Iran-Iraq conflict, involving missile and chemical weapon attacks on civilians, has made the immediate implementation of Security Council resolution 598 all the more essential. We keep in touch with both parties in New York and elsewhere, and welcome the Secretary-General's latest efforts to bring them together. Meanwhile, it is vital that work should continue on possible enforcement measures.

Mr. Temple-Morris: I applaud any efforts by my right hon. and learned Friend and the Government to bring this deplorable war to an end, but is he aware that Western policy, whatever its intentions, is not seen to be evenhanded? One result is that it has given Iraq the chance to escalate the war, sometimes in the most ghastly circumstances. The Iranian Government, as my right hon. and learned Friend knows, have made responses to the Secretary-General on Security Council resolution 598. What consideration has been given to those responses, what test has been put upon them, and, if necessary, has any opportunity been given to call the bluff, if there be a bluff?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I assure my hon. Friend that British policy in this matter is unchanged and strictly impartial. We want the earliest possible negotiated settlement of the conflict. Iraq has said that it accepts and will implement Security Council resolution 598 if the Iranians do so. Iraq wants a sequence to be followed. Iran has neither accepted nor rejected the resolution, but has engaged in delaying tactics. Since then both sides have taken actions that have contributed to an escalation of the conflict. In those circumstances, the Secretary-General has been seeking contact with representatives of both sides in New York. The only way of trying to bring the matter to a conclusion is by pressing ahead with an even hand to secure enforcement of the resolution as it stands.

Dr. Thomas: In view of the most appalling atrocity committed against the civilian population in the Kurdish regions, is it not time for the Government to initiate further action, at European Community level, too, to ensure that no material that could be used in chemical warfare is supplied directly or indirectly from Europe for either side in this appalling conflict?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sure that the whole House will sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's point. We have read with the greatest concern reports of Iraqi use of chemical weapons against villages in Kurdistan If


confirmed — I have no reason to suppose that they will not be — they represent a significant increase in the use of these abhorrent and inhuman weapons. We have repeatedly made clear our condemnation of them and made representations specifically to the Iraqis by my hon. and learned Friend, the Minister of State, on his visit to Baghdad at the end of February, by myself in a conversation with the Iraqi Foreign Minister on 15 March and to the Iraqi ambassador in the Foreign Office only yesterday. Beyond that, we have worked within the European Community — we initiated this — to impose strict export controls on chemical weapons and on civil chemicals that might be used to produce them. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that matter. I think that the whole House will share my sense of abhorrence at the use of these weapons in any circumstances in this or any other conflict.

Mr. Budgen: What are British interests in relation to this war, and how do they differ from the American interests in that area?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: This conflict is almost the only issue in international affairs which I discuss with representatives of almost every nation and find an instant response to the proposition that this bloody conflict must be brought to an end. That is Britain's interest and it is the interest of every nation.

Mr. Hardy: If the Foreign Office or any Government with whom we are in association learns or knows of the origin of chemical material, does the Foreign Secretary accept that that information should be made public?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sure that that matter should certainly be given the most serious consideration, because we have worked tenaciously to secure a comprehensive, verifiable worldwide ban on chemical weapons, specifically in this context, and have energetically taken up any cases that have been reported.

Central America

Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards a settlement of the outstanding conflicts in Central America.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): We believe that the Guatemala peace agreement remains the best framework in which to seek progress towards a peaceful settlement of the outstanding conflicts in Central America.

Mr. Smith: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Nicaraguan Government on the commendable steps that they have taken towards the implementation of the Central American peace plan? In the light of that progress, will the Government now make representations to President Reagan that it is high time that full and direct talks were opened between the Government of the United States and the Nicaraguan Government on matters of mutual security? Would it not be a wonderful Easter message to the Nicaraguan people if, after seven years of war and 50,000 deaths, they could at least know that steps were being taken towards implementing direct talks to bring an end to that conflict?

Mr. Eggar: As the hon. Gentleman knows, our policy has long been that we welcome peaceful, not military,

solutions to the problems of Central America. We have warmly welcomed the peace agreement and we urge everybody to implement it fully. A 60-day truce was recently agreed at talks on 21–23 March. Together with our European partners, we issued a statement in support of that on 28 March and we hope that the second round, planned for 6 April, will bring a substantive ceasefire and progress towards democracy. We shall he looking to the Nicaraguan Government to fulfil their pledges on the democratic front.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the release of 1,000 political prisoners in Nicaragua and the reopening of the opposition press there? Does he share my fear that this is only window dressing and that what we really wish to see in Nicaragua is a proper, pluralist democracy?

Mr. Eggar: I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and add that it is deplorable that political prisoners were held by the Nicaraguan regime.

Mr. Foulkes: Before the Minister loses his voice completely, can he not bring himself, for once, to congratulate the Government of Nicaragua on the excellent progress that they have made towards implementing the peace plan? Does he recognise that the Esquipulas peace plan applies not just to Nicaragua, but to Honduras, Guatemala and, above all, to El Salvador? What are the Government doing to ensure that President Duarte restarts talks with the FLMN/FDR and to stop the massacre of innocent civilians in that country?

Mr. Eggar: Despite the hon. Gentleman's attempt at winning ways and imploring hands, I would respect his balance in this matter rather more if he condemned the invasion of Honduran territory by Nicaraguan troops. Of course we welcome further moves towards peace in Central America. We have been doing that for a considerable time, and will continue to do so.

Mr. Wells: What steps can my hon. Friend take to make certain that the Nicaraguan Government improve still further on the efforts that they have made in respect of their negotiations with the Contras and begin to establish the pluralist democracy of which my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) spoke?

Mr. Eggar: It is clear that the Nicaraguan Government, for their part, need to establish a real pluralist democracy and to end their support of subversion in neighbouring states. One of the results of the San Jose IV meeting in Hamburg was that the European Community undertook to give support to the Central American Parliament, which is part of the overall progress in the region towards democracy.

Austria

Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present state of relations between the United Kingdom and Austria.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Relations between the United Kingdom and Austria are good, reflecting the common interests of our Governments and peoples.

Mr. Janner: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House when he expects to conclude the inquiry into


the alleged involvement of President Kurt Waldheim in the deaths of British commandos taken prisoners of war? Is the inquiry taking evidence from Captain Bill Blythe, who survived torture by Waldheim's own interrogation unit? Meanwhile, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that there will be no contact between representatives of Her Majesty's Government in Austria and this mendacious and wicked man?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must not make a reflection of that kind about the Head of a friendly state. Will he please withdraw his last remark?

Mr. Janner: I withdraw my last remark, but if the commission of inquiry comes to the expected conclusion, I shall reserve the right to make it again.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that the last exchange between you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) indicates that it certainly would not be appropriate for me today to comment on or prejudge in any way the outcome of the review that is under way. It is being undertaken by the Ministry of Defence. The commission is carrying forward its work as expeditiously as possible and the matter will be reported to the House as soon as the review is complete.

Mr. Janner: When?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The matter will be reported when the review is finished. The hon. and learned Gentleman wants the review to be thorough, and it will have to be thorough. The people conducting the review will take account of any evidence that may become available to them, including the observation made in the earlier part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question. It is for them to decide the matter. The Ministry of Defence will report the outcome to the House as soon as the review is complete.
So far as the latter part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question is concerned, representatives of Her Majesty's Government will behave appropriately, as they should.

Mr. John D. Taylor: What is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the recent statement in Vienna by the French Prime Minister, Mr. Chirac, that Austria would be a welcome member of the European Community?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I listen with interest to the observations of Prime Ministers of member states of the European Community, just as the hon. Gentleman no doubt does.

Mr. John Marshall: Although relations between this country and Austria may be good, they will be much better when the results of the inquiry are known. Therefore, may I press upon my right hon. and learned Friend that the inquiry be expeditious? It is unfortunate that the amnesia of the President of Austria is the cause of the inquiry in the first place.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall not add my own observations to those at the end of my hon. Friend's question, but I entirely share his view, as I said in my original answer, that it is in everyone's interest for the review to be completed as expeditiously as possible. The review is being undertaken with that in mind.

Kampuchea

Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on recent developments in Kampuchea.

Mr. Eggar: We shall continue to urge the withdrawal of all Vietnamese forces from Cambodia and to work for a settlement which allows the Cambodian people to determine their own future through free and fair elections and without outside interference.

Mrs. Clywd: Why do the Government continue to support the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot through the coalition of the United Nations? When will they withdraw their support for that murderous regime? Why will they not reconvene the 1954 Geneva conference, which they co-chaired with the Soviet Union when discussing the future of Indo-China, if they are serious about ending the diplomatic isolation of Cambodia over the past nine years?

Mr. Eggar: Not for the first time, the hon. Lady is misinformed. The United Kingdom withdrew all recognition of the Pol Pot regime in December 1979. We have no intention of contributing to its re-establishment. We believe that free and fair elections based on United Nations precedents offer the best guarantee that the Khmer Rouge does not dominate after a political settlement has been found.
With regard to the chance of a United Kingdom initiative on Cambodia, we have long supported the efforts of Cambodia's friends in the Association of the South East Asian Nations to bring about a satisfactory solution to the Cambodian problem, but there is no new British initiative.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the withdrawal of foreign — that is, Vietnamese — troops from Cambodia is the touchstone, not only for security, peace and progress in the region, but for improvement in East-West relations? Is there any sign yet of the Soviet Union putting pressure on its Vietnamese allies to withdraw their forces from Cambodia?

Mr. Eggar: I agree with my hon. Friend. The key ingredient is the withdrawal of occupying Vietnamese forces. With regard to the latter part of his question, the Soviet Union has told us that it endorses the regime's proposals for a solution, including an international conference. However, it has not yet gone further than that.

Mr. Lawrence: Do I understand from my hon. Friend's answer to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) that until 1979 the Pol Pot regime was recognised by the Labour Government, notwithstanding the massacres perpetrated on the Cambodian people? If that is right, is that not another example of the hypocrisy of the Labour party?

Mr. Eggar: As ever, my hon. and learned Friend is right. I thought it best to be charitable on this occasion and not remind the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) of the rather unfortunate fact of the recognition of the Pol Pot regime by the Labour Government in 1976.

Chemical Weapons

Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards the conclusion of a treaty dealing with the manufacture, deployment and use of chemical weapons; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Mellor): Encouraging progress has been made at the chemical weapons negotiations in Geneva. However, complex issues remain to be dealt with, particularly on verification and arrangements for an international inspectorate, if we are to achieve an effective convention. I met Mr. Karpov, chief Soviet arms negotiator, on Monday and discussed this issue.

Mr. Wallace: After the impetus to try to secure a treaty in the past two years, is it not regrettable that there has now been a slow-down? Given the reports of the atrocities in the Iran-Iraq war, is it not more important to stem the dangers of proliferation than to pursue perfection in verification? What is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to the verification proposals in the draft United States treaty?

Mr. Mellor: Verification between East and West is important because of the complexities involved in the interrelationship between military complexes and the civil chemical industry. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have been taking a lead in Geneva in tabling proposals on verification. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is a matter not just between East and West, but one that concerns a number of other countries,; and the lamentable use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war makes it clear to all of us that we should try to achieve a global ban. That is what we are working for. I cannot pretend that there are not difficulties that will be overcome only after a long time.

Mr. Couchman: Will my hon. and learned Friend assure the House that, in the councils of the world, when we discuss chemical warfare we make it clear that we disapprove of the transfer of technology, materials and weapons to grossly irresponsible nations, such as those involved in the Iran-Iraq war, and that we shall do our best to ensure that neither side—East nor West—supplies those sorts of countries with such weapons?

Mr. Mellor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Corbyn: Everyone would welcome any progress that can be made towards a ban on chemical and biological weapons. Does the Minister agree, however, that although he is right to condemn the use of chemical weapons against the Kurdish people in Iraq, one problem has been that the British Government have maintained diplomatic relationships with both Iran and Iraq, and not very long ago extended a £200 million credit to the Government of Iraq, enabling them to prop up their economy and continue the prosecution of the war? Would it not be better if we withdrew all trade, aid and credits to both Iran and Iraq as a way of bringing to an end the war and the use of chemical weapons in the region?

Mr. Mellor: I think that that would be an entirely self-defeating exercise. The fact that we have diplomatic relations with Iraq, for example, has made possible a wide range of contacts, to the mutual benefit of both countries, and enabled us to play a constructive part in the efforts of the United Nations to try to bring the Gulf war to an end. As recently as yesterday it enabled a deputy undersecretary at the Foreign Office to see the Iraqi ambassador, to protest in strong terms about the use of chemical weapons, and to ask that his protest be reported back at the highest level in Baghdad. Without diplomatic relations, such exchanges would not be possible. The best

way to stop the use of chemical weapons is to continue to protest through the channels available to us, as well as maintaining the present embargo to try to prevent any materials from Britain getting through that could be used in making such weapons.

Mr. Soames: The Government have done exceptional work in the chemical weapons talks in Geneva. Nevertheless, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be a great mistake to allow the chemical weapons talks to be sidetracked by other, seemingly more important, talks? Bearing in mind the importance of dealing with these appalling weapons, it is essential that we get a meaningful treaty as soon as possible.

Mr. Mellor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The NATO priorities embrace four sets of talks, and the chemical weapons talks are among them. We would all agree — especially as chemical weapons represent a worldwide problem and not one confined to East-West relations—that the sooner we make progress, the better.

Mr. Robertson: Does not the foot-dragging of the super-powers on talks aimed at a chemical weapons treaty lead inexorably towards further proliferation of these obscene weapons? Last week we saw evidence of mass deaths caused by cyanide gas in Iraqi Kurdistan—away from all the television cameras and lights that we are so used to in other parts of the world. That is an outrage, not only against humanity, but one that reflects the complacent inactivity of the great powers of the world. Why are we not so moved by the atrocities — as we are by so many others that appear on our television screens — that we take the great leap of political will which alone will free the world from these atrocious and horrifying weapons?

Mr. Mellor: I certainly agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but I have some comments to make to him. It now seems clear that chemical weapons were used by Iraq against its own Kurdish population and the Iranian invaders. That use was contrary to international obligations entered into by Iraq, so we must not be too simplistic about the matter. Much as I would welcome a convention, the mere fact of its existence would not necessarily mean that countries such as Iraq would sign it; and, even if they signed it, they would not necessarily adhere to it.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about the super-powers, I assure the House that we do not wish there to be foot-dragging and we do not believe that there is any. Every year we table a number of papers designed in a non-propagandist way to make progress. We must not underestimate the number of genuine issues that need to be resolved, such as the number of chemical weapons, the possibility of inspection, and the need to contain the prospect of a breakout, which could come through concealed work in the civil chemical industry. All these are genuine and substantive matters that cannot be wished away and will, I am afraid, take time to sort out.

East Germany

Mr. Roger King: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of the East German Government; and what subjects were discussed.

Mr. Mellor: I visited the German Democratic Republic and East Berlin from 12 to 16 March and met several Ministers and other officials, principally Deputy Foreign Minister Nier. We discussed a wide range of topics.

Mr. King: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Can he tell the House, following the recent Leipzig affair, what prospects there are for this country to increase its export opportunities in East Germany? Is it true that there are opportunities for British manufacturers of machine tools and food and chemical processing equipment? What steps would he advise manufacturers to take to bring about those exports?

Mr. Mellor: There are good prospects for British trade. I was glad to see that there were more than 140 British exhibitors at the Leipzig fair. That is more than ever before, and 66 British companies have the gold medal for regular attendance at the fair. As Mr. Wilson used to say, exporting is fun. The East German authorities have announced a substantial boost to their investment in all the areas that my hon. Friend identified. I believe that there are great opportunities for British companies which try to build up our trade. At the moment there is a heavy deficit in East Germany's favour, which we want to redress soon.

Mr. James Lamond: Did the Minister discuss the GDR's proposal, which arises out of an initiative made by the late Olaf Palmé, for a nuclear weapons-free corridor in Europe, including the whole of the GDR, part of the Federal Republic and designed eventually to link up with the Scandinavian nuclear-free area and the Balkan nuclear-free area, which, sadly has been closed, leading eventually to a nuclear weapons-free Europe?

Mr. Mellor: I took the opportunity of a friendly and pleasant visit to say that I considered that proposal emptily propagandist. It sounded emptily propagandist when it fell from the lips of my East German colleagues, and it sounds even more emptily propagandist when it falls from the hon. Gentleman's lips.
The futility of nuclear-free zones is well known to most hon. Members. There is nothing to stop weapons outside such zones being targeted on places inside it, and there is nothing to stop mobile weapons, which the Warsaw pact has in abundance, from being brought into a so-called nuclear-free zone when the need arises. If we are to make progress in East-West relations, we should have less propaganda and more substantial and sensible proposals to discuss.

Palestine

Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the current United States initiative to restore peace in Palestine.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We welcome the re-engagement of the United States in the peace process and support its efforts to help the parties reach agreement on a way forward.

Mr. Atkinson: In view of the four wars that have taken place in its 40 years of existence and the continuing threats to Israel's security, does my right hon. and learned Friend have sympathy with and support for Israel's insistence on

the maintenance of a defence line along the River Jordan as part of any solution? if Israel says no to the Shultz peace proposals, must it not come forward with its own proposals, which respect the right of self-determination of the Palestinians in the occupied territories, to bring the present intolerable situation there to a halt as soon as possible?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: What my hon. Friend says underlines what is very clear — that the status quo is in nobody's interests and that the continuation of deadlock only encourages extremists on both sides. That is why I have already welcomed the re-engagement of the United States in the peace process and why I am sure that the whole House will wish Secretary of State Shultz success on his next visit to the region. A way forward has to be found on the basis of the two principles which have been enunciated so often. They are the right of Israel and other states in the area to secure existence within recognised boundaries — I make no comment on my hon. Friend's point — and the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.

Mr. Archer: While he does not condone the policy of settlement and all that has followed from it, will the Secretary of State recognise the obvious fact that Israel has a strategic problem because of the narrowness of the country? Will he press at least for a demilitarised zone on the West Bank?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Israel clearly has a security problem. That is why every approach to the solution of the problem emphasises the need for recognition of Israel's right to exist within secure boundaries. It is equally important for the other side of the matter to be emphasised, namely, that unless Israel is prepared quite explicitly to recognise the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to proceed on the footing of the vital principle of territory for peace, there is no prospect of a way forward being found.

Mr. Walters: Bearing in mind that over the years every American peace initiative in the middle east has collapsed in the face of Isreali rejection, what hope does my right hon. and learned Friend hold out for the Shultz initiative? Bearing in mind the continuing and appalling acts of repression by Israel on the West Bank, will Her Majesty's Government and the EEC this time intervene to tr) to give some muscle to bolster the American initiative?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The position of the European Community and its member countries, including the United Kingdom, has been clearly and powerfully expressed in support of the principles that I have enunciated. It would be wrong to dismiss in advance the chances of success of the latest initiative being taken by the American Secretary of State. Of course, we should not underestimate the difficulties, but it remains vital to continue every effort to bring the parties together and we welcome it on that basis.
It is quite right that the conduct of Israel in relation to the occupied territories is an important feature that has to be put right as part of the process of finding a way forward.

Mr. Kaufman: Is not the useful initiative by Mr. Shultz seriously undermined by the comfort that President Reagan foolishly gave to Mr. Shamir when Mr. Shamir visited Washington recently? Is it not a fact that the


escalating repression in the occupied territories has demonstrated, by what is happening today, including the shooting of a woman on the West Bank and the closing down of the Palestine press service, that the problem will not be solved by repression or force but only by a conference, and that the obstacle to that conference is Mr. Shamir?
Is it not essential that we put pressure on Mr. Shamir, and recommend the Americans to do so too, because we will not get an end to the conflict without a conference, and we will not get a conference until Mr. Shamir is budged?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that the right hon. Gentleman's analysis is very close to the truth. The House must regret that the opportunity was not taken during Mr. Shamir's recent visit to Washington to confirm Israel's commitment to the current peace efforts being undertaken by Secretary of State Shultz. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the continuing escalation of violence is a measure of the urgency of making headway in that direction, above all in the cause of Israel. The policies being pursued by Prime Minister Shamir cannot assure Israel of a secure future. Israel needs peace as much as anyone, and that peace can come about only through real negotiations.
It is entirely right for the House to urge Israel to join the almost universal consensus in support of negotiations on the basis of land for peace through the framework of an international conference. It is equally important for the Arab side to recognise that it cannot afford to miss another chance as it has an equally urgent need for peace. I urge it to work with the plan put forward by the United States.

Gibraltar

Mr. John M. Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to meet the First Minister of Gibraltar.

The Minister of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): My right hon. and learned Friend has invited the new Chief Minister to visit London for talks as soon as he is able to do so.

Mr. Taylor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she not think that the new Chief Minister's stated opposition to the Brussels agreement might blight progress on the future of Gibraltar and discussions with the Spaniards?

Mrs. Chalker: I sincerely hope that that will not happen. Her Majesty's Government are committed to respect the wishes of the Gibraltarians on the question of sovereignity. They have shown their wishes in the recent democratic elections there. I believe that the Brussels agreement, to which Her Majesty's Government remain committed, is the only way forward to rebuild confidence between Gibraltar and Spain. Practical co-operation is to the benefit of both sides. I am sure that the new Chief Minister will take account of that.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister assure the new Chief Minister of Gibraltar that any conduct by members of our police or armed forces on that island will conform to normal standards of conduct in relation to suspected

criminals who are under surveillance? Will he confirm that they will not be subject to the sort of brutality that we saw in Gibraltar recently?

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman does not know his geography, does he? In addition, he cannot even recognise the facts when they are put before him. I have nothing to add to what my right hon. and learned Friend said on 7 March. The hon. Gentleman should re-read columns 21 and 22.

Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that there is a different perception of the Brussels agreement, as seen through British, Spanish or Gibraltarian eyes? Whereas a meeting with the new Chief Minister in London will be very useful, will my right hon. Friend consider an early trip to Gibraltar to see at first hand the anxieties of the Gibraltar people and to reassure them that the Brussels agreement is in their best interests, that it will in no way undermine the sovereignty that is enshrined in their constitution and that that cannot be altered without the wholehearted consent of the Gibraltar people?

Mrs. Chalker: There is no danger of any damage to the sovereignty of Gibraltar. Both my right hon. and learned Friend and I would certainly consider a visit to Gibraltar if the new Chief Minister invited one of us to go there. We must get round the table with the Gibraltarians to ensure that there is no return to the sort of confrontations that we saw in the 1960s and 1970s.

Mr. Beggs: When the meeting with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar takes place, will every effort be made to convey the very real concerns of my constituents who have invested substantial sums of money in International Investments Ltd. of Gibraltar so as to ensure that those who absconded with, or misappropriated, those funds are brought to justice and that at least some of those funds are returned to those who invested their life savings, in good faith, in Gibraltar?

Mrs. Chalker: I shall certainly look into what the hon. Gentleman has said and bring it to the attention of the law enforcement agencies in Gibraltar.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Could my right hon. Friend confirm the dates of the visit to Gibraltar of His Royal Highness The Duke of Gloucester? When she meets Mr. Bassano, will she encourage him to continue the policy of supporting the efforts of the friends of Gibraltar in this country and of the Gibraltar Heritage Trust on the Rock to refurbish the monuments and artefacts of Gibraltar and thereby encourage the tourist trade?

Mrs. Chalker: I am sure that his royal highness will go to Gilbraltar, as he has been invited to do. I welcome the setting up of the trust. We believe that it is very important to protect Gibraltar's historic monuments and I hope that the new Chief Minister will encourage everybody to do what they can in that direction.

South Africa

Mr. Fearn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the use on 7 March of the British veto on a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for sanctions against South Africa.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We vetoed the draft resolution because it included a call for mandatory economic sanctions.

Mr. Fearn: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the recent laws passed in South Africa will now prevent funds going to South Africa from organisations such as Oxfam that collect in this country? Has he any advice to give to those charities that are providing funds for that country? Is this not the time to consider effective sanctions against South Africa?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have made it plain that we condemn many of the restrictions recently imposed by the South African Government. We believe that they suppress legitimate political activity and that they will promote conflict and a move in exactly the wrong direction. It is too early to conclude that they will necessarily interfere with all forms of humanitarian relief. As for the hon. Gentleman's second point, our position remains the same. We totally condemn apartheid, but we do not think that its ending will be brought about by any step in the direction of mandatory economic sanctions.

Sir Peter Blaker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Government were absolutely right to use the veto on this occasion? Is he also aware that such people as the late Percy Qoboza, the late Steve Biko, Alan Paton and Helen Suzman, while being vigorously opposed to apartheid, have also been strongly opposed to economic sanctions being imposed on South Africa?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend makes a very telling point, drawing on arguments that have appealed to people with deep experience of South Africa. I entirely agree with him. The whole of our experience since the imposition by other countries of punitive sanctions demonstrates that they do not make the situation better. They make a bad situation worse.

Mr. Winnick: Has it not been the case in recent weeks that, far from accommodating the point of view of the Western democracies and the United Nations, the South African Government have been much more concerned with those to the right of themselves, and the electoral successes in by-elections of the Conservative party?
Will the Foreign Secretary consult as quickly as possible with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to ensure that ANC representatives in this country are given adequate police protection, in view of the assassination yesterday of an ANC representative in France and the clear fact that the South African authorities are operating murder squads to ensure that their opponents are put to death?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Let me answer the hon. Gentleman's substantive question first. Obviously, the whole House will condemn the murder in Paris of Miss September, because we are implacably opposed to violence and terrorism from any quarter. It is far too soon, however, to offer any view on who was responsible for her death.
In answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering representations on the safety of ANC personnel in London. I understand that members of the office were on an earlier occasion given advice by the police about their personal security.

Mr. John Carlisle: My right hon. and learned Friend enjoys considerable support on these Benches and throughout the country for his robust opposition to economic sanctions. Will he now consider following the same policy in regard to sporting links with South Africa? Will he give the House an undertaking that no extreme political pressure will be put on any British rugby players who may consider touring that country in the future?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Our position on that is as stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the House yesterday, when she clearly reaffirmed our support for the Gleneagles agreement, under which we try to discourage sporting contacts with South Africa. My hon. Friend will know that the English Rugby Football Union has already stated that it will try to dissuade England players from going to South Africa. We do not yet know whether the other rugby unions will follow suit.

Mr. Pike: Does the Foreign Secretary not recognise that, despite the Government's oft-stated opposition to apartheid, the blacks in South Africa still have the feeling that the Government are soft on the issue? Will the Foreign Secretary at least give an undertaking that the Government will look positively at making existing sanctions work? Is it not possible for them to go one stage further and at least stop direct flights, which will have no effect on the black population of South Africa?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall not accept the hon. Gentleman's advice on any extension of measures against South Africa of the kind that he has described. However, I would welcome his help if he would join me — and many others — in making plain to the people of South Africa that the Government have formed their opinion on the wisdom or unwisdom of sanctions on the basis of a conclusion on the best way of bringing apartheid to an end. There should be no doubt in his mind, or in anyone else's, about the vigour and firmness with which the Government condemn apartheid.

Mr. Watts: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is no such thing as effective economic sanctions and that, in particular, the disinvestment by overseas companies has achieved nothing but the transfer of businesses, at knock-down prices, into South African ownership, which has made them more insular than they would otherwise have been?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Punitive sanctions would merely make a bad situation worse. We continue to follow a realistic policy of pressure, persuasion, advocacy and firmness. There is no justification for any belief that sanctions in the more extreme form would have any effect.

Mr. Kaufman: Is it not a fact that the Government use words to condemn apartheid, but, when action is required, do nothing whatever? Their actions therefore belie their words and make them sound empty. That applies both in the Security Council and to sport.
Will the Foreign Secretary take this opportunity not to echo the empty formula that the Prime Minister carefully devised yesterday, but to say clearly and without equivocation that the Government are totally opposed to British rugby players taking part in the "rest of the world" tour in South Africa?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I repeat what I have already said and what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said


yesterday. We remain committed to the Gleneagles agreement and we shall continue to seek to discourage sporting contacts with South Africa.
On the earlier question, the hon. Gentleman must understand our view, which is upheld by many of the witnesses cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker), that comprehensive mandatory sanctions would be an ineffective means of ending apartheid. They would hurt those whom we seek to help and they would prolong conflict. Punitive sanctions of that kind imposed by other countries have already failed to speed up reform, reduced external influence and strengthened Right-wing politicians in South Africa. The experiment has been seen to fail, and it is for that reason that we adhere to our view.

USSR (Postal Deliveries)

Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the response he has received from the Soviet authorities concerning abrogations by their postal authorities of international regulations over the delivery of mail from Britain to Soviet citizens, and on the practice of providing signatures other than those of the addressees on advice of receipt cards.

Mr. Mellor: No clear Soviet response has yet been received.
We have repeatedly drawn attention to the need for closer observation of the spirit of international agreements at the CSCE review meeting in Vienna.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that there is a sense of disappointment that nothing positive has been done? Will he acknowledge that so long as a Government or postal authority give tacit recognition to signatures of people other than those to whom the mail is addressed they will be conniving at misappropriation of property and even downright robbery?

Mr. Mellor: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I am glad that he has returned to this important point. I remind the House that on 18 February we tabled a proposal calling upon all nations to agree that only the addressee or agent appointed by the addressee should be able to bear witness that a package had been delivered. At the moment, anyone appointed by the Government can do that. We look to the Eastern bloc countries to agree to that proposal as a practical way of showing that they are prepared to improve their practices on matters which should not be fundamental to their security but which are basic human rights in terms of the exchange of correspondence across national boundaries.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my hon. and learned Friend note that the continued breach of human rights and of the Helsinki agreement by the Soviet Union makes it extremely difficult for us to continue to negotiate on other matters? Will he urge General Secretary Gorbachev to change that policy and ensure that we can forward relations on a better basis?

Mr. Mellor: There is no doubt that the fundamental problem in East-West relations is the lack of trust and confidence, which more often than not is based on judgments of the nature of Eastern society and breaches of human rights, which lead people to distrust the basic

and fundamental impulses of Eastern bloc Governments. Until those things are changed, the level of progress that we want will be difficult to achieve.

Middle East

Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on moves towards a middle east peace conference.

Mr. Mellor: We support current efforts to promote the convening of an international conference as a framework for negotiations to resolve the Arab-Israel conflict. We hope that all the parties concerned will avoid action which could stifle progress towards a settlement.

Mr. Adley: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that his phrase about the avoidance of action should apply to the current repression carried out by the Israelis against the Palestinians, which is reminiscent of the tactics used by their South African allies against the non-white population there?
Following the question by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), does my hon. and learned Friend think that it would be sensible to discuss with our EEC allies some form of action relating Israel's willingness to move towards peace with a willingness on the part of the EEC to grant concessions to Israeli exports?

Mr. Mellor: There is no doubt that there has been a sharp and regrettable deterioration in conditions within the occupied territories in recent days. Seven people were killed over the weekend, a 50-year-old woman was shot dead today and in the past 10 days several hundred and perhaps more than a thousand people have been detained in circumstances which fall short of proper judicial standards. I should have thought that it would be self-evident to the Government of Israel by now that the Palestinian problem will have to be met by some means other than repression. The opportunity exists, within the framework of the American initiative, for proper talks to take place on the principle of territory for peace. Unless the Israelis are prepared to do that I fear that their 40th anniversary year will be a grave disappointment both to them and to the rest of the world.

Mr. Latham: Does my hon. Friend recall that this year there must be a general election in Israel, when the basic issue must be the peace process? Does he realise that many friends of Israel outside that country are hoping that the electors of Israel will listen to Mr. Peres and others who are putting forward peace proposals?

Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that typically constructive comment. It is crucial that, whatever else people disagree about, they agree that the status quo is no longer an option. If it were maintained there would be more bloodshed and more calling into question of the fundamental principles on which the state of Israel was rightly founded. The sooner that people come to grips with that and begin serious discussion, the sooner we can, I hope, make further progress.

Sharpeville Six

Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of South Africa concerning the case of the Sharpeville Six.

Mrs. Chalker: Along with many other Western Governments, we have repeatedly urged the South African Government to exercise clemency in the case of the Sharpeville Six.

Mr. Taylor: The Minister's answer does not completely clarify matters. What representations have been made since the postponement of sentence on the Sharpeville Six? Will she confirm that there has been no change in the South African Government's murderous intention towards them and that this Government will seek, through every avenue available in the remaining time, to ensure that they are saved from the South African Government's rope?

Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have made our position absolutely clear. We and other Western Governments have repeatedly urged the South African Government to exercise clemency. Those appeals for clemency remain. On both 16 and 17 March, when I answered private notice questions from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), I made it absolutely clear that as the Pretoria Supreme Court had agreed a stay of execution, we would not only continue to follow proceedings closely and with concern, but would do whatever must be done when news is received. No further news has been received at this point.

Mr. Forth: Has my hon. Friend made a list of all the judicial systems throughout the world of which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office approves or disapproves? Does she monitor the extent to which different countries adhere to their judicial processes? Does she agree that the South Africans have adhered strictly to their judicial processes in the trial of the Sharpeville Six? Why, therefore, is it any of our business?

Mrs. Chalker: In no way is it a responsibility of the Government to monitor all the judicial systems of the world. However, when human rights issues come to the fore, such as with the Sharpeville Six — and as I clearly explained on 16 and 17 March — I believe that the Government's stance on appealing for clemency is fully justified, and we shall maintain that.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) asked, in effect, "Why pick on South Africa?" Is not the answer that the British Government should exercise their influence in South Africa because the British actually underpin the South African economy? When will the Government stop being miserable apologists for apartheid South Africa and start doing something? If the Sharpville Six are judicially murdered

there will be no reason to prevent the Government from imposing full sanctions against South Africa. The only thing that that country understands is force. The Government have not delivered the goods on ending apartheid, and it is about time that they stopped being apologists and took effective sanctions against South Africa.

Mrs. Chalker: Not for the first time, and no doubt not for the last, the hon. Gentleman has misrepresented the Government's stance. The Government are wholly and totally opposed to apartheid. We find it repugnant and we want it ended as soon as possible. However, we shall not achieve that by measures that can only make worse an already disastrous state for many black people in South Africa. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, there is no way that we can speed the end of apartheid by repressive economic measures.

EC Internal Market

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further contribution his Department is making to increase awareness by business of the opportunities offered by the completion of the EC internal market by 1992.

Mrs. Chalker: We have launched a major campaign to bring to the attention of industry, business and the public the opportunities and challenges of the single European market. All Departments are involved in this campaign, which will include a major conference in London on 18 April, followed by regional briefings throughout the country.

Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that 1992 is a year of massive opportunities for British industry, and that the tragedy at the moment is that while French and German industry are well aware of the opportunities facing them, British industry is not? Does she also agree that if we do not get a move on, there is a real risk of British industry once again being taken to the cleaners by the French?

Mrs. Chalker: That is the very reason why the Government have just launched this major awareness campaign. We need to tell businesses of all sizes, throughout the country, exactly what opportunities lie ahead for them in the single market. That is why Ministers and, I hope, all hon. Members, will explain, as I am doing, from St. Ives to Manchester and to the far north of Scotland, just what the opportunities are. I am sure that my hon. Friend will join that important campaign for the future of British industry and for increased exports from this country.

Prisons

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on prisons.
In July last year, I announced a package of measures designed to secure a better balance between the rapidly rising prison population and the prison accommodation available. Those measures eased the position, but only temporarily. The prison population has continued to grow apace. After falling to 47,500 in early September, it rose to 50,600 at the end of last week. That is some 1,200 more than at the same time last year. Taking into account the July measures, there has been an underlying increase over the same period of some 4,200. Projecting those trends forward, we could be faced with a prison population of some 52,000 by the summer of this year.
That sharper rise has not come about because of any acceleration in crime — indeed, the figures that I announced last week show a much smaller increase than the average rate of increases in recorded crime for the last 30 years.
There are four main causes of that growth in the prison population. First, there is a substantial increase in the number of criminals being brought before the Crown court, where the rate of custodial sentencing is higher. Secondly, there is a substantial lengthening in the sentences imposed by the Crown court for offences involving violence, including robbery and rape, and for offences of criminal damage and drug offences. Thirdly, as a result of a tighter policy on parole, the numbers are some 2,000 higher. Finally, there has been an unwelcome increase in the remand population, which has almost doubled since 1980, with some 700 added since the end of November last year alone.
So the uncrowded capacity of the prison system is some 7,000 below last week's population figure. Obviously, that means that there is severe overcrowding, particularly in remand prisons and, what is worse, 1,400 prisoners are being accommodated in police cells all over south-east England and beyond. Those cells are wholly unsuited for the long-term accommodation of prisoners. Their use is expensive and can be dangerous. It diverts police officers from their job of preventing and detecting crime and keeping the peace.
Part—almost half—of the police cells problem results from industrial action in some London prisons by members of the Prison Officers Association. Such action is irresponsible and places additional burdens upon the police and the rest of the system. Prison service management are working hard to try to resolve it, and I met the POA leaders earlier today and urged them to use their influence to bring the action to a speedy end.
It is not for me to decide who and how many convicted offenders should be sentenced to imprisonment: that is for the courts. It is my role to see that the courts have a satisfactory range of sentencing options open to them, and that when they send someone to prison there is suitable accommodation available for him or her. So this dual responsibility is reflected in the measures that I announce today.
First, on the demand side, work is in hand to make community service orders more demanding and more strictly administered — for example, through the

introduction of national standards. Secondly, I have already announced a substantial expansion of the programme for providing bail hostels, involving an extra nine hostels at a cost of about £3·8 million. Thirdly, next month I intend to issue a circular designed to help the courts in taking their decisions on bail. Finally, and in the only slightly longer term, I am considering how to build up forms of punishment in the community which are seen by all to present a firm and fair way of dealing with offenders who do not merit a custodial sentence. That is on the demand side.
But the most serious crimes are rightly punished by imprisonment. Our existing prison building programme involves investment of almost £1 billion. That is the supply side. I am announcing today a number of measures, additional to those that I have already taken, to ensure that accommodation is available to hold prisoners in conditions of proper security.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Come on, Mr. Porridge.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hurd: First, Army camps will be opened at Rollestone and Camberley to house a total of about 700 prisoners. Because of the existing pressures on the police and prison services these will be manned by military police and other personnel acting under the direction of prison management grades. This will be a strictly temporary measure to bridge us through the summer until more permanent prison accommodation is available.
Secondly, through the building programme and other measures, just short of 3,000 additional permanent prison places will be created by this time next year. Of those, more than 1,300 will come on stream in the south-east from now into this summer because of the special need to relieve pressure on the remand system in and around London.
Thirdly, I am planning to reinstate Ashford remand centre in Middlesex, which would otherwise close in April for rebuilding, as a temporary remand holding centre for about 400 prisoners from the late autumn.
Fourthly, I have reviewed the existing prison estate for ways of creating additional places by using system-built accommodation and by other means. In that way, I plan to add about 800 extra places from the beginning of 1989. I shall be recruiting the prison staff needed to man those places.
Fifthly, by speeding up the existing building programme, I shall provide a further 1,000 places from the beginning of 1990. These will be created in purpose-built blocks on existing prison sites.
The combined effect of the measures that I have announced and those which I have already put in hand will be to provide just over 4,000 permanent extra places, with the necessary staff, by the end of the financial year 1988–89, with a further 1,000 starting to come on stream from the very end of 1989.
I believe that this is an energetic response to the massive growth in the prison population. I will not hesitate to take further measures should they seem desirable. We must be ready to think imaginatively to ensure that the prison service can meet its obligations. In that context, the possibility of involving the private sector more closely in aspects of the prison system should be urgently considered.


I have already moved in this direction by establishing the Prison Building Board, which includes substantial private sector representation.

Mr. Skinner: They will be able to opt out.

Mr. Hurd: The board is inviting the private sector to make proposals for building remand or open facilities faster than has been done in the past. I propose, in addition, to publish a Green Paper on private sector involvement in all aspects of the remand system, and at the same time to engage consultants to help in working out the practical implications. I also propose to explore whether there might be room for developing privately managed bail hostels, providing more secure conditions than the current range of hostels provide.
I believe that, in contrast with the past, this Government's record of commitment to the prison service in unparalleled. The further measures that I have announced today underline that commitment and our determination to ensure that public safey and security, as well as decent conditions for prison service staff and prison inmates, are attained.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: The Home Secretary has just told us that the Government's commitment to the prison system is unparalleled. That amounts to three things: first, record crime figures; secondly, record prison populations, despite deplorable clear-up rates; and thirdly, a prison system that is in chaos.
The Home Secretary has been less than candid with the House about the extent of that chaos. Will he now confirm that the Home Office, as late as today, has been making estimates about the extent of the crisis and has established that the prison population may well rise to more than 56,000 by next year. In the light of that, does the right hon. Gentleman understand that his response to that crisis is wholly inadequate and that it is based more on his desire to play politics with the problem than to solve it — [Laughter.] Hon. Members who laugh will recall that the Home Secretary categorically told us that the holding of remand prisoners in gaols was the result of the prison officers' dispute.

Mr. Hurd: Did I?

Mr. Hattersley: Well, I will read the words to him:
action in some London prisons by members of the Prison Officers Association.
That is what the Home Secretary said, but it is not, however, what the Minister of State said in the Lords a fortnight ago. When asked the same question, the noble Lord said:
The reason why prisoners are in police cells — and I must again make this clear — is that the prison system has been temporarily overwhelmed by the high levels of population growth in recent years." — [Official Report, House of Lords, 4 March 1988; Vol. 494, c. 413.]
If the Home Secretary now recalls what he said in his statement, will he tell us whether he sticks by it or whether the noble Lord in the other place was giving a more honest and less political analysis of why the problem has arisen?
Will the Home Secretary begin to accept some of the Government's responsibility for the crisis that he is now facing? In July, we told the Home Secretary that what he proposed to reduce the prison population was attacking the symptoms rather than the causes. Today he has confirmed our judgment by saying that the improvements that he then made were only temporary. He should know

that those temporary improvements and the proposals that he has now described will not meet the crisis and nor will a programme of increased prison building.
The problem is the number of people who are sent to prison in this country. It is clear that custodial sentences are right and necessary for those who commit violent or serious crime, but we send too many people to prison and keep them there for far too long.
In particular, the Home Secretary is doing nothing about the remand prisoners, who are a major problem within the system. He has told the House today that the prison population has increased by 700 as a result of the increase in remand prisoners. That is exactly the number of new places that he is creating at Rollestone and Camberley. Had there not been an increase in remand prisoners, he would not have had to open those two Army camps. He is making the situation worse as a result of the Criminal Justice Bill, out of Committee yesterday, by changing the remand rules from seven to 28 days. What is more, he is failing totally to apply the 110-day rule throughout the United Kingdom. If it were universal, it would reduce the prison population by a substantial number.
The right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor must also take responsibility for another increase. The right hon. Gentleman blandly tells us that the tighter parole policy has increased the prison population by 2,000. But that policy is the responsibility of this Government—as is the failure to provide an alternative to custodial sentencing.
Two Bills ago, when the right hon. Gentleman was merely the Minister of State at the Home Office—some six years ago—the Opposition told him that he ought to develop more non-custodial sentences. Today the Home Secretary has told us that that is what he is now proposing to do and what he is thinking of doing. The truth of the matter is that the Home Secretary is trapped between logic and the 1922 Committee. That is why, at the end of his statement, we heard all that irrelevant nonsense about privatising the prison system. Everyone knows that that will not make a scrap of difference, but it may see the Home Secretary through another difficult afternoon. Good luck to him.

Mr. Hurd: I know that the right hon. Gentleman's political difficulties are crowding in on him, but he should keep some hold on reality in spite of the deputy leadership contest. He adverted to figures, but neglected to look at the latest ones, which show that police clear-up rates are rising again, which means that more criminals are being caught. There is a major problem at the violent end of crime, as we readily admit. The courts are responding to that by sending more people to prison for longer, and that is part of the problem.
I repeat what I said in my statement, to which the right hon. Gentleman did not listen because the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was making so much noise. I said:
Part—almost half—of the police cells problem results from industrial action".
That is exact. About 600 of the prisoners who go to police cells each night do so as a result of industrial action by the POA. The easiest single contribution to solving that problem is that that industrial action should come to an end.
The right hon. Gentleman said that I was not doing anything about remand; of course we are. We are building


nine new bail hostels. Contrary to anything that went before, we are imposing time limits on trials. Later this week, on 1 April, I am extending that to 14 new police areas and I hope that by the time it covers the whole of England and Wales it will provide a saving of the sort the right hon. Gentleman describes—600 remand prisoners. The proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill offer a balance on the issue of bail which is right.
The right hon. Gentleman prattled about non-custodial sentences. Of course, there has been a great increase in the use of community service orders. We need to move on from the position we inherited and developed and build up the notion that there can be punishment in the community as well as in prison. That is not easy to achieve, but it is what we are working on, and the House will have an opportunity to consider our proposal.
The right hon. Gentleman's approach is deeply hypocritical. My two predecessors and I have tried, starting from nothing, to build up a major investment of £1 billion in the prison building system. The Government to which the right hon. Gentleman belonged not only did nothing, but inherited from a Conservative Government a prison building plan that they cut by 35 per cent. in 1976. I cannot remember whether that was at the same time as they cut the hospital building programme or a little before or after, but it was part of the same process, and it completely disqualifies the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) from making these proposals.

Mr. Leon Brittan: Does my right hon. Friend accept that further development of alternatives to custody will be warmly welcomed and that the further use of time limits as envisaged in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 will also play a constructive part in the future? Does he also agree that, in the short run, faced with a crisis caused in substantial measure by industrial action, he is absolutely right to take urgent measures to make more places available for the prison system and to accelerate the prison building programme? That is essential, both in the short term and in the long term.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. He began the process of experimental time limits on the length of time a person could be kept on remand, and he knows that that is proving successful. He also knows that it is sensible to proceed step by step, which is what we are doing. I believe that this will make a substantial contribution to easing the problem.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: How long does the Home Secretary expect the strictly temporary use of Army camps to be necessary? Does he accept that the remand prison population makes a disproportionate contribution to the problem about which he has just told us? Will his circular on bail draw to the attention of the courts the presumption of innocence which all persons on remand should enjoy; and will he explain why he is unwilling to institute an immediate extension of the 110-day rule throughout the whole of England and Wales? It has been operating in Scotland for over 100 years. Is it not time that England and Wales enjoyed the same benefit?

Mr. Hurd: The answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's first question is, the late autumn. The answer to his second question is that the Bail Act 1976, together with the amendments in the Criminal Justice Bill, gets the balance about right. There is purpose and point in a circular that will draw to the attention of the courts the possibilities that are now opening up about getting more precise information about the circumstances of an offender. Such information will enable the courts to decide more accurately whether bail should be granted. There is a great deal of point in building up bail hostels and possibly bail hostels in secure accommodation so that courts have the alternative of sending someone home on bail instead of locking him up in custody.
I think that I have already dealt with the hon. and learned Gentleman's third point. He knows that the Scottish system and processes of bringing people to trial are quite different and that therefore the 110-day rule cannot automatically be applied. We are building up step by step, area by area, and gradually tightening, a system of time limits suitable for England and Wales.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not only distinguished former holders of his office who think that today's package is no more than good sense? What are the comparative costs of holding prisoners in Army camps and in police cells, and which is the most favourable? Does he accept that the sooner the go-ahead is given for private contract remand prisons to be introduced to the system the sooner will the kind of problem that he addresses today be permanently removed?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. The costs are roughly as follows. It costs the huge sum of about £1,000 a week to keep a prisoner in a police cell. To keep a prisoner in an Army camp would cost about £400 a week and in a prison the cost is about £250. I know that my hon. and learned Friend is a strong supporter of the concept of private management of remand. There are more attractions in that than in holding convicted prisoners in privately managed conditions. The arguments of principle and practice need to be thrashed out in British terms as opposed to, or in addition to, American terms. That is why the Green Paper and the consultants' report are the right next steps.

Mr. John Morris: What precisely will be the increase in number and availability of prison officers? Is the Home Secretary aware that such is the crisis at the moment that there is very great concern in the courts that there are frequently no dock officers to search defendants and no dock officers present when custodial sentences are to be imposed? There is also concern when there are no policemen present in magistrates courts. Must a tragedy occur before something is done? If a tragedy does occur, will the Home Secretary take personal responsibility for it?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows better than that. He knows, or should know, that for many years we have been recruiting prison officers substantially faster than the rise in the prison population. If he has studied the figures, he knows that I have already announced that 1,960 prison officers will be recruited in the course of next year. That is 1,360 more than the expected wastage rate. I quite agree that the provision of extra places that I have announced will need staffing, and I made that clear in my statement.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly correct to say that in some places there has been a problem about the absence of police and prison officers in courts where the magistrate or the judge expected them to be. I have discussed this with the Lord Chief Justice and steps are in hand to make sure that in each local situation those concerned—the chief constable, the prison governor and those responsible for the administration of the courts—get together to find a common-sense solution to that problem.

Miss Janet Fookes: May I remind my right hon. Friend that many of the problems that he has pinpointed today were pinpointed in the report of a Select Committee that I chaired in the mid-1970s, and that at that time the then Labour Government singularly failed to grapple with any of them? May I further impress upon my right hon. Friend the need to look at alternative means of imprisonment, particularly at the day fine system as a means of keeping fine defaulters out of prison, and at the new suggestions for electronic surveillance of people who do not need to be in prison?

Mr. Hurd: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful contribution. She is perfectly right. We shall certainly tackle the possibilities of electronic tagging when we put forward our ideas on punishment in the community. I am keen that it should not be regarded as something separate or as a gimmick, but that it should find its place, if there is a place for it, in our general approach to punishment in the community.
My hon. Friend is also right about fine defaulters. They form a small part of the prison population, about 500 at any given time, and they are sent to prison by the courts only as a last resort. It would be more sensible if, in the beginning, the courts could assess offenders' means more accurately when they fix a fine, and we propose to help them to do that.

Mr. Peter Archer: On reflection, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the terminology of the free market about suppliers and consumers, where there is no consumer choice, shows too firm a determination to prime ministerial doctrine? As he has told the House that the Government's repressive policy on parole has contributed 2,000 prisoners to the crisis, why not discontinue that policy?

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right. The courts place the demand on the prison system. It is perfectly reasonable to describe it as a demand which has to be met with action on the supply of prison places. That phraseology is perfectly right.
It is perfectly true that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), my predecessor, imposed restrictions on parole, which I have continued and which I believe to be entirely justified. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the Parole Board has gone considerably further than that. Most of the increase that I have mentioned does not relate to the policy of successive Home Secretaries, but to the spontaneous action of the Parole Board going wider than that. That matter will be discussed.

Mr. Roger Sims: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the initiatives that he has announced this afternoon will be welcomed outside the House as well as

within it, particularly by the police, who have been obliged to devote a disproportionate amount of their manpower to acting as temporary prison warders?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that additional prison accommodation can be made available far more quickly by the private sector than by the public sector? Is he aware that a number of companies and consortia would be able and willing to build prisons and then either lease them or sell them to the Government and that that would produce accommodation far more quickly? There are companies and consortia waiting to do that. Will he consider that possibility and implement it as soon as possible?

Mr. Hurd: Absolutely. That is one of the proposals that I have announced. We have had approaches from a good many companies proposing to build and lease or build and sell. We are now saying, "Give us the precise ideas; let us discuss them with you." My hon. Friend is right: there is more scope than we have realised or used in the past for using the private sector to accelerate the provision of prison places. The matter becomes more difficult when we get into the problems of private management. I answered a question from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) about remand in connection with that point.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the Home Secretary agree that part of the problem—we all agree that there is a crisis in the prisons—could well be solved by taking two simple and effective measures tonight—first, to release those who are currently in prison for non-payment of fines and, secondly, to release those who are in prison for non-payment of maintenance? That would at least create approximately 1,000 places overnight and go a long way towards solving the police station problem.
Does the Home Secretary agree that there is a little irony in his statement this afternoon because his hon. Friend the Minister of State rejected out of hand the day fine system when it was considered in Committee as recently as a few weeks ago? Is not the truth of the matter that the Home Secretary is not prepared to take the bold and imaginative steps necessary to solve what is becoming a perennial crisis?

Mr. Hurd: I certainly do not think that I would be justified in letting out of prison, by some form of executive release, people whom the courts have sent to prison as a last resort for non-payment of fine. That would be quite wrong. Many people have considered that problem and have started by saying that it must be wrong that fine defaulters are in prison and ended by acknowledging, as did the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), with his knowledge of the matter, that, in the last resort, the courts must have that right. The figure is about 500 at any one time. The answer is to make the level of fine realistic in the first place; that is what we are concentrating on.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: May I assume, since I have written to my right hon. Friend on the subject, that he is well aware that ever since I came to this place, I have been promised by successive Home Secretaries that when the lease of Lancaster castle ran out, the prison would be removed? The city and county councils were hoping to make a superb tourist attraction on this site, and are very disappointed that my right hon. Friend will now hang on to it. Will he promise me here and


now that if the prison population falls more rapidly than expected, he will relinquish the prison at the earliest possible moment, and enable us to use it for tourist purposes?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend and I have clambered over the roof of Lancaster castle together and I know how devoted she is to it, and how ambitious she and her constituents are for taking it out of prison use and making a tourist attraction of it. I have to disappoint her, and I hope that I warned her and the Duchy of Lancaster in good time that we need to hang on to it for prison purposes. I cannot give her a date when that will come to an end. Obviously, if her hopes were to be justified and there was a rapid fall in the prison population, we would look at the matter again, with the legitimate ambitions of the people of Lancaster for their castle very much in mind.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Is it not a fact that, under this Government, the prison population has increased by some 20 per cent. — an abnormal increase—and that there is something seriously wrong with the Government under whom this is occurring? Will the Secretary of State study the reports from the last three Select Committees on Education, Science and Arts about prison education? Although prisons are now pregnant with violence, education is made more and more difficult. There are not enough warders to look after those who wish to be educated and to take them from place to place, and nothing is being done to help prisoners, despite our reports.

Mr. Hurd: The prison population was rising long before 1979. The difference is that we have done something to provide prison places, when the Labour Government did not. The hon. Member is on to a good point about prison education, and I know that he has followed this for many years. However, he paints too gloomy a picture. There have been major problems in the regimes, which have affected education, but that tide is beginning to turn. I was at Bristol prison on Friday and I was impressed by the educational facilities there, which have been improved.

Mr. David Wilshire: Will my right hon. Friend comment further on the third of the measures that he announced — the re-use of Ashford remand centre, Middlesex, which is in my constituency, because this is an issue of major concern for those whom I represent? There are four points which they would like clarified. First, the announcement this afternoon referred to bringing Ashford remand centre back into use for 400 inmates, when 376 are being moved out this week. Can my right hon. Friend assure my constituents that overcrowding will not become a problem in this centre when it is brought back into use?
Secondly, how is the remand centre to be staffed, come the late autumn? Will it be by prision officers or by private contractors? Thirdly, will bringing this back into use result in the abandonment or delay of the proposals for redevelopment, because many people locally wish to see the proposals abandoned? Fourthly, will my right hon. Friend give the undertaking that has been given in the past to liaise closely both with me as the local Member of Parliament and with local councillors, so that the community is well aware of what is going on?

Mr. Hurd: Those are reasonable questions, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the tone in which he put

them. Four hundred is a round figure, and we have to work out in greater detail what is an acceptable level of occupation. The staffing will be by prison officers and not by soldiers. The redevelopment plan still exists, so it is delayed rather than abandoned. The answer to the last question is, yes, certainly, we shall keep in close touch with the local authorities, with the local people and with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the Home Secretary address himself to the central question which he has so far ignored, which is why it is that we send more of our citizens to prison per head of population than any other country in western Europe, yet neither our streets nor our citizens are safer as a result? Will he admit that prisons are overcrowded not as a result of people being in prison because they have committed violent crime — there would be no disagreement about that — but because they are cluttered with petty offenders, who are on short sentences in local prisons? Therefore, as a matter of urgency, will he address his attention to the evidence that is coming from the National Association of Probation Officers, so that we solve this problem not by building more prisons but by using other forms of treatment for people who are in prison but should not be?

Mr. Hurd: The trouble is that one man's petty offender is another man's dangerous housebreaker. That is decided not by the hon. Member or by me but by the courts, case by case. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. I want to build up for the courts a wider menu or set of alternatives to custody for the non-violent offenders. That is precisely what we are doing.

Mr. Simon Burns: My right hon. Friend's statement will be warmly welcomed, and nowhere more than in Chelmsford, where the young offenders' prison has been greatly over-subscribed in the past few months. Is not a great deal of time wasted by prison officers who have to go between the prisons and the courts with prisoners and sit in the dock with them while their cases are being heard? Is he prepared to consider privatising that part of the service, so that prison officers can be released to get back to working in the prisons?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is quite right to say that the amount of time spent by prison officers in escort duties of different kinds weighs heavily on the service. It is the other side of the coin about which the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) was talking when he was complaining that there were not enough of them. The Green Paper will go into this and all other aspects of possibly involving the private sector in the remand system.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe that I have now called all those who are directly affected by this statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I have no exact knowledge of which hon. Member has a prison in his constituency. I ask hon. Members, in view of the business before the House today, and there is a great deal of it, to ask brief questions so that we can have brief answers and get on.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: In the light of the recent evidence given by the prison service to the Public Accounts Committee on the gross under-utilisation of prison workshops, is it not clear that the reason for their under-utilisation is the problem of warder power, and the fact that one cannot run industrial workshops in prison


conditions if those in charge regard themselves as part of a penal institution? Is there not a sensible argument for bringing the private sector into the management of those workshops, to give some new objectives and to set a different scene, in which prisoners can enjoy rehabilitation?

Mr. Hurd: That is exactly what we are doing. A good many workshops were closed because they were not properly organised and used. We are relying more and more on private sector advice in building up from that position. In most workshops there have to be discipline staff, or the instructors will feel insecure. The number of uniformed staff necessary in a workshop will differ from one prison to another, but within the limits of security, the fewer uniformed staff one needs in that place the better.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: My right hon. Friend is aware of the successful experiment in Kent, which has kept a large number of people out of institutions altogether. Given the enormous cost of what he is proposing, will he look again at his Department's view that when an experiment in community care, or any other such scheme, is a success, the cost of it has to fall wholly on the local authority? Should he not look at using some of his central funds to expand and increase such experiments?

Mr. Hurd: Of course we do that. As my hon. Friend knows, depending on the exact service involved, the costs are rightly shared between central and local responsibility. As we develop and publish our proposals for punishment in the community — for dealing with people outside prison—we shall tackle the question of financing.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Minister accept that the remand problem would be diminished if more people were treated like Ernest Saunders, who seems to be able to flit round Europe with consummate ease? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a more fundamental question behind the massive explosion in the prison population that he described in his statement and that the philosophy of every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost, encapsulated in the so-called enterprise culture, in fact breeds crime? The Government seem very lacklustre in their efforts to chase city spivs who make millions of pounds but very keen on burdening our prisons with petty criminals. Does the Minister accept that we need a change in the Government's philosophy? In particular, they should set an example by stopping robbing the taxpayer as they did over Rover.

Mr. Hurd: No Government have taken more initiatives more effectively than this Government to clamp down on fraud; the hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well. No other Government in recent times have done more to emphasise the responsibilities of the citizen as well as the enterprise of the citizen, which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, we are encouraging.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) and I drew the attention of his Department to the deplorable state of affairs in Bedford remand prison, where prisoners are three to a cell, where there are top security prisoners and where slum conditions prevail? We had a helpful meeting with a junior Minister at the Department on the subject.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the measures that he announced today will make an early contribution to solving the extremely urgent problem in Bedford?

Mr. Hurd: My first priority is to reduce the number of prisoners going into police cells night by night because the conditions there are just as bad—perhaps in some cases worse—than those in Bedford, and there is the danger of escape and the diversion of police from their proper duties. My hon. Friend is perfectly right that another aim must be to reduce overcrowding, which is unacceptable, particularly in local prisons such as Bedford, and especially among the remand population.

Mr. Ken Eastham: Does not the Minister's announcement today confirm the record increase in crime? The Minister said that there were four causes: an increase in detentions, longer sentences, reduced parole and an increase in the remand population. Should he not have mentioned a fifth cause, which is that people are being placed in prison when they should really be in mental hospitals? Because of the inadequacies of the Health Service, patients are now being dumped at the doors of prisons when they should he somewhere else. It is because of those inadequacies that the prison officers are having to cope with the problem. Is it not about time that there was consultation between the Home Secretary and the Department of Health and Social Security with a view to making some changes?

Mr. Hurd: The thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument is right, if the rhetoric is stripped away. There are still too many mentally disordered offenders in prison, although there are fewer than there used to be, and the right answer is to find the right institution, case by case and person by person. We constantly work both nationally and locally to do that.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: All those concerned with law and order will welcome the Home Secretary's statement. However, why does the Home Office persist in locating prisons to the convenience of the courts and prison visitors? Why can we not locate prisons to the convenience of local residents? As my right hon. Friend knows, a prison is to be located on the outskirts of Rochdale and Oldham in my constituency. Why cannot prisons he built in remote areas or even on islands?

Mr. Hurd: Because it is both risky and extremely expensive to locate prisons, particularly remand prisons, a long way from the courts that they serve. My hon. Friend will no doubt be glad to hear that in France people clamour for prisons to be built in their constituencies because of the employment that they provide.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I am sure that the Home Secretary will be aware that I have three prisons in my constituency. The Government have completely lost the confidence of the Prison Officers Association by reneging on the "fresh start" agreement with that association. That distrust has led to the prospect of industrial action at one of the most dangerous prisons in the country, Frankland prison. Instead of opening Army camps, which are not necessary given that there are empty prison wings all over the country, why does not the Home Secretary honour the "fresh start" agreement and recruit prison officers to get on and do the job properly?

Mr. Hurd: We are recruiting prison officers as fast as we possibly can. I have given the House the figures, which show that next year we plan to recruit 1,960 against an expected wastage of 600. An enormous increase is taking place, and I entirely reject the assertion that we are reneging on "fresh start". "Fresh start" gives those of the hon. Gentleman's constituents who are prison officers a properly organised professional service for the first time. To take industrial action against it, in Frankland—or, even more damaging, in London—is a self-destructive act on the part of prison officers.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement that 1,300 extra prison places will be provided in the south-east will be particularly welcome in the context of the remand problem? Is not one of the root difficulties the delay in the process of justice? is there not a case for his pressing upon the Lord Chancellor the recruitment of more circuit judges to speed up the process?

Mr. Hurd: That has already happened. There is also the problem of the Crown prosecution service, and my hon. Friend will know of the steps that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is taking to put more resources into the CPS. Furthermore, there are the natural delays in the law. We have dealt with the question of time limits. We are anxious to use every pressure that we legitimately can to cut down delays.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: Does the Home Secretary recall the plans announced by his Department two years ago, which were aimed at reducing overcrowding in several prisons, including Leeds prison? At that time the population of Leeds prison was 1,200 against a certified normal accommodation of 650. The population of Leeds prison is now 1,400, and the prison continues to exist only because of the good will and hard work of the staff. What hope does the Home Secretary's statement hold out for the prison staff and what will it do to reduce the massive overcrowding in Leeds prison? Will there be a substantial reduction?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is right that Leeds prison has steadily become more overcrowded, and it survives—it does much more than that; it does very well — because of the high morale and the hard and constructive work of its staff. When I went there not long ago, I was very impressed to find that it was planned to make a success of "fresh start" and the new flexibility that that gave. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) our first aim must be to ease the numbers of prisoners in police cells night by night. Our second aim must certainly be to relieve the pressure on overcrowded large local prisons such as Leeds. As the medium and long-term measures that I have announced come into effect, that should happen.

Mr. Greg Knight: Does my right hon. Friend accept that he need not take lectures from Opposition Members, given the disgraceful cut in the prison building programme under the last Labour Government? On the subject of Army camps, can my right hon. Friend tell us what sort of prisoners he envisages being sent there and whether they will be secure? I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement about private sector involvement, but how soon does he envisage the private sector providing substantial extra places?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend's first point is perfectly right. Not just the prisons but the police and the law and order service as a whole were grossly neglected by the Labour party, as they would be again if it ever had the chance of establishing priorities. The prisoners in Rollestone and Camberley will be category C convicted. I do not exclude the possibility of using the provision for suitable remand prisoners, as we did with Rollestone in the autumn.
My hon. Friend asked about private sector involvement. In building, there are no handicaps or difficulties; it is full steam head. There is much to be done over bail hostels. On the management of convicted prisoners, I am hesitant. On the management of remand prisoners, there is plenty of scope for ideas and discussion and eventually for an experiment; that is what the Green Paper will illustrate.

Mr. Tony Worthington: The statement is welcome for the relief that it will bring prisoners and prison staff, but the Home Secretary knows perfectly well that we will be here again next year with a similar emergency statement unless something is done about the supply side. Why is Britain so uniquely prone to sending people to prison? Is it because of the practice of the courts or because we create more crime — in which case, what will the Home Secretary do about it rather than pursue the irrelevancies of privatisation?

Mr. Hurd: We do not create more crime. If we compare our crime figures with those of our European partners, we do not find that we are a more criminal nation. It is certainly true that our courts send more people to prison than is the case in most European countries, although the judges dispute the statistics and say that they are not comparable. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman's general proposition is right. Parliament fixes the maxima and it is for the courts to decide, case by case, within those maxima what sentences to apply.
I have already answered the hon. Gentleman's main point. I do not believe that we should, or could, limit the courts' ability to make their own decisions case by case. I want, however, to spread before them for the lesser offender—especially the non-violent offender—a wider range of disposals outside prison so that they no longer think that it is only by sending someone to prison that they can impose a worthwhile punishment.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the five hon. Members who have been rising, but I ask for brief questions.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I think that my right hon. Friend said that 1,400 people are currently held on remand in police stations. Is he aware that two people who were held on remand in Chesterfield police station after allegedly committing an armed robbery escaped last Friday morning? Does he agree that, as long as people are held on remand in police stations, it will represent an extra burden on the police? Incidents such as occurred last week take up quite a lot of police time, so my right hon. Friend's statement is welcome—we hope that it will relieve some of the pressure on the police service.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I said that the use of police cells for prisoners was dangerous, and that is precisely what I meant. We had the escape from Battersea of seven prisoners and I have had today a first


report of the escape from Chesterfield to which my hon. Friend referred. It underlines my point—the sooner we can reduce and then do away with the use of police cells for prisoners, the safer the system will be.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend estimate the size of the recidivist prison population? Does he agree that that group turns prisons into what Lord Justice May called universities of crime? Will my right hon. Friend continue to try to find means of rehabilitating prisoners so that they do not return to prison? What is being done to increase education and the prison work programme which, tragically, has declined recently?

Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is no longer fashionable to suppose that prison is a place where everybody can get reformed, and my hon. Friend is not arguing that case. The prison service and prison governors are clear that there are cases when a great deal can be done to prevent reoffending, and workshops and education are means of achieving that. That is why one purpose of "fresh start" is to make possible an improvement in regimes.

Mr. James Couchman: My right hon. Friend has made it absolutely clear how unacceptable it is to hold 1,400 people on remand in police cells, quite often many hundreds of miles away from their homes and from the scene of their crimes. What he has announced today is entirely welcome. When he uses Rollestone and Camberley, what will be the status of any military personnel who are used to guard the camps? What status does he envisage for any prison officers who might be outside the POA but used in contract remand prisons in the future?

Mr. Hurd: On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, it is too early to say, but that is a matter which the Green Paper will have to study. Camberley and Rollestone will be prisons. They will be designated as such and I shall appoint prison governors. There will be administrative grades to look after them. The military personnel employed will be in the same relationship as they were in 1980 and 1981, which is the last time that military personnel were used to look after prisoners. The ones who are in contact with prisoners will be military police and provost personnel, not other soldiers. I believe that the system will work smoothly, as it did last time.

Mr. John M. Taylor: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but what accommodation does he propose for that small but significant number of offenders

who fall between the various sections of the Mental Health Act 1983? They are quite unsuitable to be in prison but are either inadequate or unsafe to be at large?

Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has a responsibility there and the Home Office and his Department have to keep in close touch locally and nationally on certain cases to ensure that we keep the kind of people about whom my hon. Friend spoke out of prison.

Mr. Chris Butler: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the deplorable conditions that exist in remand centres such as Risley, which need urgent attention. May I urge my right hon. Friend to be less tentative than issuing a Green Paper and going through a possibly lengthy system of consultation, and get down to the immediate relief that the private sector could bring?

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that the private sector could bring immediate relief. Even an experiment, if it was to be worth while, would need a change in the law, which would certainly be contested. I have to have regard to the industrial relations side. As my right hon. Friend knows, the planning side is also difficult. We would not solve any of the planning problems of new prisons or remand centres by privatising. We need to push ahead with our thinking on this matter. I hope relief action will be the result. It is a major step and it must be carefully weighed and worked out in British terms.

Mr. Hattersley: Can the Home Secretary clear up the confusion about day fines? He seemed in answer to a question to be very sympathetic towards their introduction, but his Minister of State explicitly ruled them out in Committee a few weeks ago. Could we be told whether the Government are in favour or against? Will he confirm that 56,200 is the Home Office estimate of the prison population, but that he decided not to give the figure to the House?

Mr Hurd: On the first point, what I said and what I repeat is that, as regards fines, we are considering ways of helping the courts to assess offenders' means more accurately when they fix a fine.[Interruption.] No, that has been our policy for a long time. The figure I mentioned in my statement was 52,000 this year. One cannot be precise about the figures for the future. That is why I did not give a figure for after the summer of this year. On present projections, the population will continue to rise quickly. That is why I have announced 4,200 extra places. If we can get the short term and the medium term right, that will join in with the results from our longer-term building programme and the problem will begin to be solved.

Workington Brewery (Closure)

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
The proposed closure of the Workington brewery by Scottish and Newcastle Breweries in contravention of assurances given to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in 1986 to safeguard employment in Workington.
The House will recognise that, while the matter is specific to my constituency, it is important to the country as a whole because Scottish and Newcastle has set out clearly in the leaked minutes which I have in my possession, and which were referred to in The Independent this morning, to deceive the people of Workington in an unparalleled manner.
Last year, Scottish and Newcastle successfully acquired the profitable Mathew Brown brewery on the back of a collapsing stock market and having given half-hearted assurances to the people of Workington and the Government that it would not threaten jobs. No sooner had it acquired control of the company than it set up a small group of senior management to plan the brewery's closure.
The plan involved opportunism, dishonesty, deception and betrayal. Directors of the company, often pillars of the community in areas where they live, were party to a squalid and underhand operation which, under the code name "Operation Trojan", planned the deception of the trade unions during negotiations on wages; an attempt to appoint a company placeman in the unionised work force without the knowledge of the unions; the manipulation of regional development grant applications to avoid raising premature suspicions among employees; the use of Scottish and Newcastle's big guns if things became difficult; the handling of misleading information in response to local speculation and local opposition; the holding of covert brewing trials under false labels in Newcastle; and the deployment of the lie in defence of the company's interests.
The irony is that Virgil tells us that the use of the Trojan horse to get access to Troy was the means by which the Greeks gained control and destroyed the city. Scottish and Newcastle's Operation Trojan was equally designed to gain control by deception and deceit, and then having secured control, to destroy the Mathew Brown citadel in Workington. Mr. Speaker, can we debate this matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
The proposed closure of the Workington brewery by Scottish and Newcastle breweries in contravention of the assurances given to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in 1986 to safeguard employment in Workington.
I have listened with concern to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that the matter that he has raised is not appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Scottish Schools (Legislation)

Mr. Donald Dewar: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware of the correspondence between the Prime Minister's Secretary and his opposite number is the Secretary of State for Scotland's Office, which has been widely reported in the press.
It reveals a dangerous abuse of power, with the Prime Minister dictating policy and tactical detail. The Prime Minister has in effect instructed the Secretary of State to enter into a scandalous conspiracy with one of his own Back Benchers to introduce powers to allow schools to opt out of the education system.
That is offensive because there is no case for that alien innovation which will fragment the school system and make it more difficult to provide real opportunity to all children across the whole range of educational and social backgrounds.
It is doubly offensive because Ministers have repeatedly denied that there was any such intention. For example, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who I am glad to see is present, on 14 August 1987, at a press conference launching his discussion document on school boards,
emphasised that the proposals for Scotland would not allow school boards to opt out of the local authority sector.
On 21 March 1988, the same Minister speaking in the Scottish Grand Committee, claimed that the only circumstance in which opting out would be considered was
if there was evidence of real and substantial demand".—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 21 March 1988; c. 37.]
There is no such evidence, and it is a disgrace that on the very day that the Minister was giving what now seems to be a worthless assurance from a discredited source, the Prime Minister, presumably finding herself at a loose end for five minutes, was wishing on Scotland a dangerous nonsense, unwanted by parents and pupils alike.
This is a matter of great importance because it promises enormous damage to Scotland's independent and proud education system, and because it gives a chilling insight into the way in which the Prime Minister dictates to her Ministers in this case forcing a change of course despite undertakings freely given. There is a question here of faith and credibility.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, the abundant evidence that, in connection with a recent education order on school closures, the Secretary of State was not master in his own office. That charge has been totally justified by this further example of the Prime Minister's malign influence. The Secretary of State has been forced to swallow his pride, and, much more seriously, the Prime Minister's policies. It is essential that those policies should not now be forced on Scotland's schools. The matter is urgent because we know from the correspondence that meetings are imminent. We fear that there may be an all too unequal contest between the Secretary of State's duty to represent Scotland and the Prime Minister's entrenched prejudice.
There should be a statement and an assurance that there will be an end to this unwelcome invasion of our affairs by the Prime Minister. That assurance should be given now, before the House rises. I appeal through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Government to give us that assurance and to act now to put an end to this nonsense.

Mr. Speaker: I have seen the reports and I listened to the radio at lunchtime. I understand the hon. Member's concern but, as he correctly stated, it is not for me to say whether there should be a statement. I am certain that those who are responsible for these matters will have heard what has been said.

Sir Hector Monro: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that we are to have an education debate during the first week after the Easter recess, would it not be perfectly logical for the Secretary of State to make a full statement during that debate so that hon. Members can make up their minds on the issue?

Mr. Bruce Milian: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We look to you to protect the interests of the House in this matter. What has been disclosed today is appalling in its sheer dishonesty. We have a major change of policy to be announced, in contradiction to a ministerial assurance very recently given, by means of a planted amendment to a Bill which has not even had its Second Reading. We know that the Secretary of State for Scotland has become the Prime Minister's lapdog, but that does not excuse him or the Prime Minister treating the House with utter contempt and dishonesty. We ask you, Mr. Speaker, to protect the House and to demand a statement from the Leader of the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: May I say to Scottish Members who are rising to intervene on this matter that there is not very much I can do about it. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has said that there is a Bill. I was not aware that there was a Bill to be debated shortly after we return from the Easter recess. I have no knowledge of any amendments having been tabled. They have not yet been brought to my attention.

Mr. John Marshall: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not high time that these bogus points of order, started by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) — whose child has been opted out of the state education system — are brought to an end so that we can get on with discussing the Housing (Scotland) Bill?

Mr. Speaker: I do not recognise the phrase that the hon. Member used. I know that this is a matter of high interest and concern in Scotland, but I must say to hon. Members that we have a heavy day of Scottish business before us, followed by the Merchant Shipping Bill. I ask that we get on with that, as there is not much that I can do about the matter.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will agree that it is of the utmost importance that hon. Members who are about to break for a brief recess to meet their constituents during the next 10 days, prior to debate on the education Bill which has been referred to, should go home with better information for their Scottish constituencies than mere newspaper reports, which are well-founded in that they emanate from 10 Downing street, and that we as Members of Parliament should have proper information in the form of a statement from the Minister, or indeed, the Secretary of State?
We should not have to go home to our constituents—my constituents have already been on the phone to

me this morning—and explain to them, on the basis of newspaper reports, what the Prime Minister has leaked to the newspapers. That information is not only highly alarming to Members of Parliament and our constituents but seeks to destroy the fundamental education system in Scotland and will deeply damage our educational system by integrating it with the English system. That is why a statement is needed today.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I have no new policy to state, but I hope that it may be helpful if I state the position as I understand it. The Government's policy on the involvement of parents in the management of schools has been clearly spelt out. That policy is given effect in the School Boards (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced on 16 March and which is to have its Second Reading after Easter. That Bill does not contain provisions for opting out and the Government do not propose to include such provisions in the Bill. As for future policy, the Secretary of State and the Ministers have made it clear on several occasions that opting out may be considered for future legislation, but no decisions have yet been reached.

Mr. Dewar: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker. It is unsatisfactory for the Leader of the House to say that no decisions have been made, when, according to press reports, there has been actual correspondence with the Prime Minister's office that makes it absolutely clear that a decision has been taken in principle and that it is merely the tactics of implementation that have to be considered. The credibility and honour of the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) are very much at stake. He has given repeated assurances that the Government will not go down that road. All that the Leader of the House did was make it even more imperative that there should be a statement from a responsible Minister to clear up this mystery and allow us to put the point that this nonsense must be taken off the agenda now.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that we can take the matter any further today. I am not responsible for whether Ministers make statements. The Leader of the House has already stated the factual position concerning this newspaper leak. I do not think that there is any way in which I can assist the House.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Leaving aside the damaging policy implications, a much more important underlying revelation in the newspaper articles is the subversion of the policy-making role of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Scottish Members do not have the advantage of a Select Committee that can summon Ministers and civil servants before it to get to the bottom of the matter. The Leader of the House should therefore consider what should be done about it this afternoon.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did the Leader of the House make a statement or an intervention? If it was a statement, we should be entitled to question the Leader of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the Leader of the House rose to give the factual position in an effort to assist Scottish Members who have important business to discuss today by giving an indication of the business after we return from


the Easter recess. I think that the Leader of the House was seeking to suggest that that was the appropriate time for this matter to be discussed.

Mr. O'Neill: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What is the position when a Bill has received its First Reading and there is clear evidence to the effect that a substantial change is to be made before the Bill receives its Second Reading? Can you explain to me how we can properly debate the contents of that Bill if we do not know the exact nature of the policy changes?
Major changes are often made in Committee, but normally that is done on the understanding that circumstances have changed. There is ample evidence to show that the Government's policy has changed since the Bill was published. The House is entitled to guidance from you on the procedural significance of a change between the First Reading and the Second Reading of a Bill. We cannot have a proper Second Reading debate if the contents of the Bill have not been made known to the House.

Mr. Wakeham: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present when I gave my previous answer, but I shall repeat what I said in one sentence. The Bill does not contain provisions for opting out and the Government do not propose to include such provisions in the Bill.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With the greatest possible respect, will you not reflect on the fact that the Leader of the House has made a business statement? A business statement is normally followed by questions. The Leader of the House has been courteous and has given a further explanation. I respectfully ask you to say that Opposition Members, particularly from Scotland, should be allowed to probe further the Government's thinking on this very important issue. That is a reasonable request, in the absence of the Secretary of State for Scotland coming to the House to make a statement.

Mr. Speaker: In seeking to be helpful to Scottish Members, I am not certain that the Leader of the House is in a position to answer factual questions. That is surely not a matter for him. The original point of order from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) contained a request for a statement. It was perfectly legitimate for him to ask for a statement, and the Leader of the House gave the factual position. I do not think that we can take the matter any further.

Mr. Millan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following the points that you have fairly made, could not the matter be resolved if the Leader of the House gave an undertaking that the Secretary of State for Scotland will make a statement tomorrow? That is what we are asking for. Why can we not have such an undertaking?

Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm your responsibility for the protection of the business of the House? You must be becoming aware, as we are, that there is a plot on the other side of the House to use bogus points of order to prolong business that is not on the Order Paper, thus preventing the House from considering very important

legislation. It must be within your power and discretion to prevent abuse of the House by bogus points of order and to let us get on with the business.

Mr. Speaker: That is what I am seeking to do. However, the hon. Member does not represent a Scottish constituency. He may not know the background to these points of order and he may not therefore understand the concern of Scottish Members. The Leader of the House has been very helpful and has stated the factual position. I do not think that we can take it any further this afternoon. The time to raise it is tomorrow during Prime Minister's Questions or at business questions. Today the House has to consider further very important Scottish business following a very late night and also the Report stage of the Merchant Shipping Bill.

Mr. Harry Ewing: further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that the Leader of the House has left the Chamber. I apologise for the comment that I am about to make in his absence. He tried to be helpful to the House, but I have to advise you that the Leader of the House repeated word for word what the Prime Minister recorded at 1 o'clock today in a television interview in Scotland that is to be broadcast tonight. My view is that the Leader of the House is protecting the interests of the Prime Minister. It is well known that there will be another row tomorrow because of what the Prime Minister has gone to Scotland to say today.
As for the Bill to which the Leader of the House referred, according to the Glasgow Herald the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) is to be given an amendment to that Bill and the Government are to use it to set out their policy. In a sense, that is much more acceptable than the shabby way in which the House and the Secretary of State have been treated. I have a lot of sympathy for the Secretary of State for Scotland. He is becoming an object of pity. Because of the activities of the Under-Secretary of state for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), the Secretary of State for Scotland can hardly turn his back now.
My point of order for you, Mr. Speaker, is the accuracy of the record. The Scottish Grand Committee met in Edinburgh on 21 March. The letter from the Prime Minister's private secretary to the Secretary of State for Scotland is dated 14 March. The Minister must have known on 21 March the contents of that letter when he made a statement in the Scottish Grand Committee which is now on the record and clearly shown to be untrue.
Surely you, Mr. Speaker, as the custodian of the report's accuracy, are under an obligation to act on the way in which it has represented the matter, when something completely different was going on behind the scenes.

Mr. Speaker: The Chair has no idea of what is going on behind the scenes, and I cannot be held responsible for what Ministers say. Nor can I be held responsible for what is in letters that are leaked to the newspapers.
I fully understand the concern of Scottish Members about the matter, but I say to them again that I do not feel that anything further can be said about it today. No doubt we shall return to it during Prime Minister's Questions tomorrow, and, as the Leader of the House has been present today, we may have a further opportunity to


discuss it then. Today, however, in the interests of the whole House, we would be well advised to get on with the Report stage of the Housing (Scotland) Bill.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Time is getting on, but I am in the hands of the House. If Scottish Members wish to pursue the matter in this way, they may do so, but they must take the consequences.

Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The problem could be solved. Three Scottish Office Ministers are present, including one who is directly involved in the argument that we have been having today. He can clear the whole matter up. He can let us know whether it is true that there was a planted question, and that he was aware of the exchange of letters when he made his statement to the Scottish Grand Committee on 21 March. He can tell us that he or the Secretary of State is prepared to come here tomorrow to make a clean breast of the whole matter.
It must be kept in mind that the school that occasioned much of this, although the whole of Scottish education is now affected, was in Paisley, involving my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams). The matter was raised by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who has already been endeavouring to distort any sane and sensible solution for comprehensive education in Paisley.
You have handled the matter, Mr. Speaker. We must thank you for allowing us to say what we have said. But this is a crucial issue: the present position cannot continue.
Strathclyde region is now discussing the future of the schools. If we are now told that there will be a planted question to change the proposed Bill, that future can be altered. Strathclyde region now needs to know whether the Government intend to go ahead with what the Under-Secretary has been conspiring with the Prime Minister to achieve. Will he tell us today either that he will make a statement, or, perhaps, that the Secretary of State intends to resign? He has been sufficiently humiliated; I believe that he is prevented from resigning only by his knowledge that the Under-Secretary would take his place, and has put his country before his honour to save us from that prospect.
The Leader of the House has spoken. Why cannot one of the three Scottish Office Ministers make a clean breast of the matter, so that we know where we are?

Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have here an episode that is probably more corrupt and devious than anything that those of us who have been Members of the House since last June have witnessed in Scottish affairs—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Accusations of corruption in the House are not parliamentary. I ask that the hon. Gentleman withdraw that.

Mr. Wilson: I used the word in its dictionary sense, but I shall withdraw it if it has been taken in another way.
Three Scottish Ministers are sitting on the Front Bench, one of whom is at the centre of this web. One Minister has been exposed as having colluded with the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) to achieve an end with the specific purpose of deceiving the House. The hon. Member for Stirling — Mr. Forsyth Limited—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members do not refer to each other in that way either.

Mr. Wilson: When the Scottish Grand Committee met recently in Edinburgh, the Under-Secretary — the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)—spoke twice, at the beginning and at the end of the debate. Surely he, as a central figure in this squalid affair, can now come to the Dispatch Box and answer for his role in it.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) talked about a conspiracy. I agree that there is a conspiracy. You, Mr. Speaker, have a responsibility when there is a conspiracy involving what I would describe as a corruption of power by the Executive.
This is a serious matter. When an hon. Member has been discovered to be economical with the truth —although he may well have been in error — he has a responsibility to come to the Dispatch Box. The House is always very generous, when people err, about any statement that they may make in Parliament; and, after all, the Scottish Grand Committee is an adjunct of Parliament.
This is not a criminal matter. If power corrupts a Government and the Executive try to corrupt power, Mr. Speaker has responsibility in that regard. He must examine the matter closely.
There are 50 Members of Parliament in Scotland—a quarter of the Opposition. They cannot be treated in such an arrogant and conceited way. It was not sufficient for the Leader of the House to come and make a statement. He made a statement, and then he left. We sympathise with your difficulty, Mr. Speaker, but we want an undertaking from the Treasury Bench that the Secretary of State for Scotland will come to the House tomorrow and make a statement. The Government have been found out, and, in all honesty, they should apologise to the House and make a statement to clarify the position.

Mr. Michael Fallon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is this not a clear abuse of the procedures of the House, and is it not patently obvious that, on education matters, the Government have the Opposition on the run? In view of that, should we not now move on to housing policy, and give the feeble 48 a little time in which to recover?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already said to the House, and I believe that the whole House accepts it, that there is nothing that the Chancellor can do about this matter. I understand the strong feelings of hon. Members. They have vented those strong feelings, and they are asking for more information. But the Leader of the House has stated the factual position, and I think that the time has come to move on to the next business.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Well, I am in the hands of the House.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on what may be a breach of parliamentary procedure. Today, in Scotland, the Prime Minister said in an interview conducted by Miss Fiona Ross on Scottish Television that the school boards' proposal was simply a stepping stone on the way to an opting-out policy, and that legislation would be introduced soon. Should not that statement have been made from the Dispatch Box by a Minister responsible for Scottish education?

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—if it was a point of order, which I somehow doubt. You said just now that you were in the hands of the House in this matter. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the House is in your hands, in the sense that if points of order are not genuine, or are merely tedious repetition—if they have already been made and made again, and nothing new is being said—there is no need whatever for you to continue to take points of order.

Mr. Speaker: As ever, the right hon. Gentleman has made a very helpful comment.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The contribution from the chairman of the 1922 Committee was pretty tasteless, and in view of his ancestry he should be ashamed of it. I ask for a ruling arising from something that you said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), when you referred to those responsible.
I believe that the good name of the House of Commons is at stake, in that when politicians are apparently responsible for unauthorised disclosures little or nothing happens, but when civil servants are responsible they can, like Clive Ponting, land up at the Old Bailey. There is a genuine argument relating to the good name of politicians as a whole. When civil servants are blamed, by innuendo or otherwise, one law applies, but when a disclosure is made apparently on political authority it is different. The Leader of the House has an obligation to tell the House on whose authority the letter was disclosed and whether there will be a leak inquiry.
In the past four days, on seven separate occasions, on two of which you, Mr. Speaker, were in the Chair, I quite legitimately raised the subject of the correspondence between Mr. Gray and Mr. Jeffrey as it affected educational testing and the Department of Education and Science. On each occasion, there was a light-hearted acknowledgement from the Secretary of State for Education and Science and no one said that I was wrong when I made the specific accusation that it had been done on the authority of the Prime Minister's secretary's press office.
The question—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot see any point of order for me in what the hon. Gentleman has said so far. Perhaps he will now come to his point of order and I will see whether I can deal with it.

Mr. Dalyell: My point of order is that the good name of the House of Commons is involved and that a leak inquiry should be announced tomorrow.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that all the Scottish Members have had their say. I am not taking any more points of order on this Scottish matter.

Points of Order

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Only if it is a totally different point of order will I take it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is absolutely different, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday there was a statement to the House on the privatisation of Rover Group. My point of order relates to what is printed in Hansard, as against what may be available on the BBC tapes of our proceedings. At the end of my question, I asked :
Is it not true that the only people who have benefited from this matter in the past few days, and indeed, today, are those who are speculating in BAe's shares who have preempted this decision and who will inevitably make a substantial gain?" —[Official Report, 29 March 1988; Vol. 130, c. 895.]
A Minister, from a sedentary position but within earshot of a number of my hon. Friends, was heard to say, "You don't understand. You don't understand. The shares have been suspended. There's no speculation." I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, whether you could arrange to have those words published in the Official Report. My reason is as follows.
British Aerospace shares were suspended at 1.6 pm yesterday at a buying price of 373p. They were returned to the market at 4·5 pm, when the buying price was quoted as 410p. In the next few hours, the price shot up to 435p. This meant that a 16 per cent. increase had taken place in the price of British Aerospace shares in the very period that I had identified in the Chamber. Taking into account the previous period of speculation from Monday morning, the increase was from 355p to 435p—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This seems to be a continuation of what took place yesterday. I do not see in Hansard this interjection from a sedentary position, and it cannot be part of the parliamentary record unless the hon. Member concerned was called by the Chair or the comment from a sedentary position was subsequently taken up. It was not subsequently taken up, so it is not part of our proceedings.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: When I asked my question yesterday, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry, the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), was sitting where the Scottish Minister is sitting now and it was from that position that he made the sedentary intervention. It is important—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Sadly, and incorrectly, all kinds of things are occasionally said from a sedentary position, but they are not part of our parliamentary proceedings.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On yesterday's Order Paper and today's Order Paper a total of 58 questions appear, tabled by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith). I notified the hon. Gentleman that I intended to raise this matter.
In the introduction to the 1987 new Parliamentary edition of the Register of Members' Interests, there are nine specific classes under which Members are required to register their interests. The fourth class refers to
the names of clients when the interests referred to above include personal services by the Member which arise out of or are related in any manner to his membership of the House.


The hon. Member for Beaconsfield is a consultant to Price Waterhouse. I understand that Price Waterhouse is building up a business plan and seeks the information. If the Order Paper is used to put down so many questions, where there is a direct fiduciary or pecuniary interest it should be entered in the Register of Members' Interests to make it clear that the activity is being undertaken for payment.
In my view—I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, share my view—Members should not ask parliamentary questions in return for payment, which seems to be the issue in this case. I hope, therefore, that you will produce a statement in the near future deprecating the practice so as to bring it to a halt.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman has a complaint of that kind, he should make it to the Select Committee on Members' Interests. That is the proper way to deal with it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This derives from what took place both today and about 10 days ago. My question is when a contribution from the Government Front Bench becomes a statement on which we can ask questions.
On the previous occasion, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, came to the House late one night and made a short statement relating to the Sharpeville Six. Quite properly, she said that she had limited information and you, Mr. Speaker, equally properly in my view, said that she could not answer any further questions because she had nothing more to tell the House. On an earlier occasion, however, I recall that you ruled that when a Minister came to the Dispatch Box in reply to points of order, that made the contribution into a statement and rendered it open to questions from other parts of the House.
The matter has arisen again today. I ask your guidance on how a contribution by a Minister—in this case from the Leader of the House, although it would apply equally if the contribution had been from a Scottish Minister—in response to points of order becomes a statement on which the Minister concerned can be questioned in the normal and conventional way.

Mr. Speaker: It is true that on one occasion in the past when the Minister responsible made a comment from the Dispatch Box I allowed it to progress as a statement. Today, however, the Leader of the House was seeking to be helpful against the background of a very heavy day before the House. I was grateful for what he said; I think that he was seeking to be helpful to me as well as to the whole House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) referred to what happened in the House yesterday and to the statement by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He also mentioned the suspension of trading in British Aerospace shares and the altercation about that. Trading in the shares was suspended and then restarted, resulting in a 22 per cent. appreciation in value over three days and a 16 per cent. appreciation yesterday.
Notwithstanding the difficult position in which you are placed, Mr. Speaker—certainly with some of the points of order raised earlier—you have also been in somewhat

of a predicament lately because this Government are treating themselves to a display of arrogance. They are rolling over the Opposition, which is all right; they do it at every opportunity, but we expect that. We know that that is the Government's role. However, the Government are now beginning to treat the Chair with contempt, as has been evident from all the events—[Interruption.] I am referring to the Executive, the whole of the Treasury Bench.
It would be easy for you, Mr. Speaker, to ascertain precisely what was said in the seated intervention to which my hon. Friend the Member for Workington referred. Many of us listened to the radio broadcast and clearly heard what the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry said. The Government are handing over £650 million of taxpayers' money, on the nod, to British Aerospace, while social security claimants, especially the pensioners and the disabled will be hammered during the next fortnight. It is important that the Opposition are allowed to say, at the time that the issue is raised, that this Government are letting British Aerospace make money hand over fist on the Stock Exchange.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It might help the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, the whole House, if I were to state the position of the Official Report. The proceedings of the House relate to when an hon. Member is called by the Chair to ask a question or to speak. When comments are made from a sedentary position—and I regret that they are far too frequent — they do not form part of the official proceedings of the House unless they are subsequently taken up.
I have no knowledge of what was alleged to have been said yesterday by a Member sitting on the Bench.

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may have read reports in the newspapers today that the Prime Minister has met the leader of the illegal regime in Fiji, which took power following a coup. The reports state that the Prime Minister has agreed to consider measures to allow Fiji to re-enter the Commonwealth and to consider the reintroduction of training—which I find astonishing for military personnel in Fiji.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, there is an illegal regime in Fiji. You will also be aware that the Queen has refused to receive its leader. Do you have any information on whether the Prime Minister intends to make a statement about her discussions with the head of an illegal regime? Does the Foreign Secretary plan to make a statement to the House? This is a matter of some concern.

Mr. Speaker: I have no such knowledge. The matter did not arise during Foreign Office questions today. It may possibly arise tomorrow during Prime Minister's questions.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Question Time my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janney) referred to the Austrian President. You ruled that it was out of order to refer to the President of a friendly state in the manner used by my hon. and learned Friend.
I wish to seek your clarification of how we are to know whether or not a state is friendly for the purposes of the language that can be used in the House. It is an extremely important point of order because we need guidance. For


example, is South Africa classed as a friendly or an unfriendly country for the purposes of any reference to its Head of State by hon. Members? Indeed, hon. Members may wish to refer to Heads of other countries.
We need a clear ruling as to which Heads of State we can refer in colourful parliamentary language, and to which Heads we are obliged to be permanently polite.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The position is well stated in "Erskine May". It is not in order to cast aspersions on Heads of State with whom Her Majesty's Government have friendly relations.

Mr. Grocott: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that anything further can arise from that point of order.

Mr. Grocott: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a busy day ahead of us.

Mr. Grocott: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman further.

Mr. Grocott: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I simply do not understand. Is South Africa a country with which we have friendly relations and on whose Head of State we cannot pass comment?

Mr. Speaker: We have diplomatic relations with South Africa.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the three motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the Local Government (Direct Labour Organisations) (Competition) (Amendment) Regulations 1988 (S.1., 1988, No. 160) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Venezuela) Order 1988, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Turkey) Order 1988, be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Wakeham.]

Empty Property and Community Aid

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require local authorities to take steps to identify empty houses and put them to use.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Grocott: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already dealt with the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Hargreaves: In crude statistical terms, there are more empty properties in Britain than there are households. At the same time, homelessness continues to increase. Government figures show that in 1979 local authorities in England accepted 57,200 households as homeless; in 1986, the figure was 100,000. It is likely that even those high figures are but the tip of the iceberg.
I am not suggesting that if all empty properties were brought back into use, the problem of homelessness would be solved. Many empty properties are the wrong size and in the wrong place. However, I do suggest that empty properties in areas of housing need, where there is an unmet demand for housing, are a wasted resource.
The Bill has one aim : to ensure the maximum possible use of houses left empty for many years. The mere existence of large numbers of empty houses, despite all the public concern, is in itself sufficient evidence that new initiatives are needed. We must act to end the scandal of empty properties in both the public and the private sectors. There are long waiting lists for rented accommodation, and thousands of families live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, where family life is impossible.
Those are reasons enough to justify the Bill's proposals, but the problems caused by empty properties do not end there. Worry, distress, vandalism, danger, financial loss, loss of property value and spoilt neighbourhoods are all problems suffered by neighbours when properties are allowed to lie empty, abandoned and derelict for many years.
In my constituency there are several examples of properties being left empty and derelict for many years. That has caused distress to the neighbours and a steady stream of correspondence from the local authority, but all to no avail. For example, No. 40 James street, Oswaldtwistle, is one of several properties owned by a London-based family. It has been empty for 10 years. A concerted effort to have the property improved and brought back into use has failed.
Having been vacant for at least seven years, the house was deteriorating to a point where it was affecting neighbouring properties and jeopardising the housing action area investment in that locality. It was therefore decided in October 1986 compulsorily to purchase the property as no alternative solution had been possible. An agreement to do so was confirmed by the housing services committee of the borough council in December 1987.
The owner has been given every opportunity to sell at a realistic price or to improve the house with the aid of a


full improvement grant, but he has not done so. The amount of staff time and effort used to accommodate the owner has been considerable.
No. 17 Bright street, Oswaldtwistle, is derelict and boarded back and front. It is in very poor condition and detrimental to the area. It is one of a number of properties owned by a local person and it is understood that those properties are, in the main, unoccupied. For reasons best known to the owner, 17 Bright street has been vacant since 1946. During that time, it has naturally deteriorated and been a major problem to the residents of the neighbourhood. As the owner has exercised his free choice not to let the property, the local authority has not been in a position to insist that it should be brought back into use. Only when it has become so bad as to be detrimental to the area has the council been in the position compulsorily to purchase it.
The Bill would require local authorities to register all empty residential property and provide the Secretary of State for the Environment with an annual statement of their strategy for bringing back into use any empty properties that they own. It would oblige councils to allow community groups, such as housing associations or other voluntary bodies, to use empty properties in their possession for housing homeless families, unless they can show good reason why the properties are empty. It would allow local authorities to guarantee loans made by building societies to enable them to repair houses that are empty, the loans being repaid by the occupants as if they were rent or mortgage payments.
The Bill would give councils a new power, similar to the control-order provision of the Housing Act 1964, to put empty property use orders on long term empty houses. That would allow local authorities — working, for example, with housing associations—to make use of the property to house homeless people for up to five years, where the owner of the property has been unable to show good reason why the property is empty.
Private owners whose property is brought back into use by means of empty property use orders would benefit in real terms by the material improvement in the property over the period of use, particularly as building society funds would be used to improve the property substantially.
Some private developers have already adopted a farsighted attitude to the use of property which has been temporarily left empty. They speak highly of such schemes. Mr. Colin Smith, managing director of Wimpey Property Holdings Limited, stated:
We are delighted to have reached agreement for the continued occupation of our properties. As a result, the houses are preserved for use by those in need, instead of being allowed to decay.
The power to impose empty property use orders on empty properties is a lesser power than already exists. At

present, councils use compulsory purchase orders which allow total expropriation of the properties by the council for ever. Empty property use orders permit a council to use a house for up to five years only, and then return it to the owner in better condition. Therefore, an empty property use order is a less extreme measure and reduces the need for the more extreme measure of a compulsory purchase order. It is a less drastic and more flexible weapon with which to counter the problems that are caused by empty properties.
I welcome the all-party support that the idea of empty property use orders has received, not least from those closely involved. Councillor George Micklewright, a Labour councillor in Bristol, wrote:
The problem of using CPOs is the procedure is longwinded and it is very much a last resort. It is like using a sledgehammer. But at present we have no alternative if persuasion does not work. We could do with something more sophisticated than CPOs. The use of empty property use orders would help.
His Conservative counterpart, Councillor Terry Allen, said:
Our philosophy normally would be not to intervene against private property, and we do have some sympathy for the owners. But we have more sympathy for neighbours having to endure these properties and for the potential occupants. The idea of empty property use orders appeals to us. They will give us a less drastic power to help us secure use of these long-term empty houses.
An empty property use order, which could be used at a much earlier stage than a compulsory purchase order, would result in the saving of houses before they become derelict and often beyond repair.
With 700 empty properties in England alone, much needs to be done. The Bill would make a real contribution to improving the availability of houses for homeless people and go some way towards reducing the eyesores that we see in our towns and cities. Its proposals will benefit neighbours and residents where there are empty houses. Ratepayers will benefit from the saving of public money and the homeless will benefit. I hope that the House will support the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ken Hargreaves, Mr. David Alton, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. David Evennett, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Robert Hughes, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Allan Roberts, Ms. Joan Ruddock, Mr. Cyril Smith, Mr. Robin Squire and Mr. Teddy Taylor.

EMPTY PROPERTY AND COMMUNITY AID

Mr. Ken Hargreaves accordingly presented a Bill to require local authorities to take steps to identify empty houses and put them to use : And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 May and to be printed. [Bill 136.]

Orders of the Day — Housing (Scotland) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 54

PERSONS BY WHOM RIGHT MAY BE EXERCISED

Mr. John Home Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 31, line 42, leave out from `Homes;' to end of line 9 on page 32 and insert
`and every public sector landlord including regional councils or joint boards or joint committees of two or more regional councils and any trust under the control of a regional council will automatically be so approved.
(2) An approval under this section—

(a) shall require the consent of the rent assessment committee in every area in which the new landlord may wish to acquire property;
(b) shall, in relation to any landlord, specify the maximum number to which the approval extends of houses to be acquired by him under this part of this Act; and
(c) in determining the maximum number referred to in Part 52 (2)(b) above Scottish Homes shall in all cases consult with the appropriate rent assessment committee.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House to discuss also amendment No. 160, in page 32, line 9, at end insert—
'(4) The Secretary of State may approve a public sector landlord as an approved person for the purposes of this section where—

(a) the majority of tenants of an approved person have complained in writing to the district council in whose area the houses tenanted are situated as to the financial affairs of, administration of or level of service being offered by such an approved person; and
(b) the Secretary of State, upon enquiry, is satisfied that such a complaint is justified and the acquisition of all of the houses owned by the approved person complained of would be appropriate for the local authority.

(5) The Secretary of State may make regulations under this part of this Act by statutory instrument to provide for the holding of enquiries where complaint has been made by tenants, the determination of such enquiries, and the procedure for acquistion of any property following such an enquiry.
(6) A statutory instrument containing an) order or regulation under this part shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(7) Orders or regulations under this part may make different provisions for different cases or circumstances or different areas and may contain such incidental provisions as the Secretary of State thinks fit.'.

Mr. Home Robertson: Having listened to the resounding silence of one Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, he who is supposed to be responsible for education—some would call it dumb insolence in his case—I return to the attack on the question of housing in Scotland.
Amendment No. 7 would require local authorities to acquire houses from the private sector, subject to consent from the tenants, and would enable rent assessment committees to monitor and, where necessary, to regulate private landlords in Scotland.
Part III has been described by the Scottish Office publicity machine as a "tenants' choice" mechanism. that must be a new low in dishonesty, even by the threadbare standards of the present Administration in the Scottish Office. Presumably the word "choice" is supposed to imply that all tenants will be able to choose their landlord. However, as we know, the truth in the Bill is very different. Tenants will be totally passive. Part III establishes a framework of "landlords' choice" whereby private landlords will be able to acquire public sector houses at bargain prices under a perverse form of compulsory purchase scheme. That is not tenants' choice; it is more like a landlords' lucky dip at the expense of the local authority and the tenant. The only power that is given to the tenant in this process is to grant his or her consent to the transaction going ahead.
The Government have specifically excluded the possibility of privately owned houses being transferred to the public sector, however much the tenants of privately owned houses might want that transfer to take place. The transfers will be in one direction only and those transfers to the private sector will be irrevocable. There will be no going back once the tenant has allowed that to happen.
The amendment provides for genuine choice by enabling the property to be transferred in either direction, either from the public to the private sector, or the private sector to the public sector. It also provides for safeguards to be applied by the rent assessment committees in the private sector.
The Government clearly see the redevelopment of private landlordism in Scotland as an end in itself. They therefore want to make it easy for private landlords to acquire property cheaply and easily—not by building houses to rent or improving existing property, but by raiding district council housing stock in Scotland. We shall no doubt see further incentives for the private sector, coupled with even more disincentives for the public sector, as part of the Government's doctrinaire and spiteful policy towards Scottish housing.
We in the Labour party want to promote genuine diversification in housing in Scotland. One need look no further than Labour-controlled local authorities, such as Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, Stirling and, indeed, to my own constituency of East Lothian. Labour-controlled local authorities, on a local basis, are promoting housing associations, co-operatives and, indeed, partnership with the private sector, and why not? There is a long list of examples of locally initiated schemes introduced voluntarily by elected local authorities without this heavy-handed interference by central Government.
There is evidence that most Scots who want to rent their homes would prefer to have the option of public sector tenancies. There are examples of that from places as unlikely as the Shetland Islands, where tenants of the Scottish Special Housing Association have made it abundantly clear that they wish to remain in the public sector and would prefer to transfer to local authority tenancies rather than be shuffled into the private sector.
Equally, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) said last night, there is overwhelming evidence that the tenants of new town development corporations do not want to be shuffled into the private sector. They want the option of transferring to the local authorities. That is understandable. There will be even stronger demand for public sector tenancies when the


true horror of insecurity and high rents that are inherent in the assured tenancy system become well known when and if this wretched Bill reaches the statute book.
May I take the House briefly through the process whereby a private speculator will be able to operate the scheme in part III? First, a representative of the private landlord must persuade a tenant to sign the consent for him to acquire the public sector house concerned. That could involve bribes and inducements, including offers of rent-free periods, and in some instances representatives of speculative landlords may try to trick tenants into giving up their secure tenancies in the public sector and move into insecure tenancies in the private sector. The Scottish Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has expressed anxiety about the fact that there is no provision for clear advice for tenants in those circumstances.
Having secured the tenant's consent, the acquiring landlord would have to notify the local authority, which would then be obliged to sell the house to the acquiring landlord at the district valuer's valuation. Of course, that will be a low valuation, and it will be even lower since it will be made subject to the secure tenancy that still applies in the public sector.
Finally, unless the tenant withdraws his consent, the landlord can spring the trap. He will have acquired the property at an artificially low valuation and the tenant will immediately lose his rights under the secure tenancy system, including the right to a fair rent, the right to full security, the right to succession and even the right to buy. The tenant would move quickly into the uncharted and insecure waters of assured tenancies. There should be a Government health warning on the assured tenancy system, which will be a recipe for insecurity, eviction and stress for many tenants.
That is not the end of the story. Having acquired a potentially valuable asset on the cheap, the landlord will have an immediate windfall gain, as the value of a house with an insecure tenant is higher than the value of a house with a secure tenant. It will then be open to the landlord to find ways of exploiting the position even further—by forcing up the rent or even trying to get rid of the tenant altogether by evicting him. That will be easy under schedule 5. Then, with vacant possession of the house, the landlord will be able to sell at a vast profit without the local authority having any say in the matter, despite the fact that it built up the asset.
That is indefensible, and a warning should go from the House to Scottish tenants to avoid the trap by refusing to sign anything that may be put before them by fly-by-night landlords who may appear on their doorsteps in the coming months and years. I am especially worried about the loss of special needs housing for rent that could result from the legislation. We have already experienced that in many areas, under the right to buy, and the position could become worse as a result of this landlords' choice mechanism.
The Minister's English counterparts promised significant safeguards in the comparable scheme for England and Wales. They have undertaken to introduce a code of conduct for approved landlords, and they have accepted the principle that transferred tenants should be allowed to return to local authority tenure if they wish. They have also imposed a duty on the housing action trusts—there is no equivalent for Scotland — that may acquire the properties to assist local authorities in housing homeless

people. No such duties will be imposed on acquiring landlords in Scotland. No such undertakings have been given for Scotland.
Part III has nothing to do with choice. It is a bare-faced device to allow speculators to plunder the public housing stock under a perverse and unjustifiable form of compulsory purchase scheme. If they want to be involved in rented housing, why do they not build houses, improve existing housing stock or acquire houses voluntarily from the local authority? That happens in Glasgow. But that is too straightforward. It is too much to expect that from the private sector. In Scotland, the private sector has been declining since the beginning of the century. It has dwindled to only 6 per cent. of the Scottish housing stock, and it is absurd for the Government to build a housing policy on the dwindling and discredited private rented sector.
Shelter has informed us that 50 per cent. of the cases of homelessness that have been reported to it in Glasgow came from the private rented sector. How much worse will the position become when the scheme comes into effect? The Government are taking a dangerous risk for tenants in Scotland by trying to found their entire housing policy on people who have failed in the past and who are known to include unscrupulous people who are capable of exploiting and harassing tenants.
Part III is a dishonest and dangerous scheme. The only way in which it can be made to work satisfactorily is to provide for proper regulation of private landlords and to enable local authorities to acquire housing if private tenants wish to change to local authority tenure. That would inject the comprehensive element of choice that is completely lacking from the Bill at present. The amendment would achieve those objectives, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for Conservative Back-Bench Members from Scotland to attend this debate? I do not know whether they have been named—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order. Let us get on with the debate.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order for Conservative Back-Bench Members from any part of the country to attend this debate?

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Those interventions have tempted me to say that sometimes I think I miss even the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) —

Mr. Foulkes: Surely not.

Mr. Welsh: Well, perhaps not.
Amendment No. 7 would allow local authorities to be approved landlords. The Scottish National party amendment, No. 160, represents a fail-safe device to meet the major problems that will arise under this new housing system. The two amendments are interlinked and their basic principle is to allow tenants the extra option of returning to public authority housing.
Amendment No. 160 provides a procedure for the reacquisition of houses by a local authority in circumstances where it would be appropriate for that


authority to reacquire them as a purchaser of last resort. As set out in subsection (4)(a) of the amendment, they include circumstances where
the majority of tenants of an approved person have complained in writing to the district council in whose area the houses tenanted are situated as to the financial affairs of, administration of or level of service being offered by such an approved person.
Allowance is made for the Secretary of State to make inquiries and deal with the problem.
The amendment offers an important form of tenant protection that is missing from the Bill as drafted. The Government assume that all local authorities are bad landlords and that all private landlords are automatically good. The traffic directed by the Bill is all one way—out of the public sector — with no channel of return, even if the tenant wishes to do so. True freedom of choice should work both ways, with citizens having the opportunity freely to opt out or in of the public and private sectors.
The Government's version of free choice stops short at the public sector. My amendment would alter that to allow local authorities to replace private landlords where they have proven themselves to be inferior. That would restore two-way traffic between the private and public sector and offer genuine freedom of choice to the individual.
The Government assume that the transition to a private landlords will only be to the good. My amendment questions that assumption by looking at cases where the majority of transferred tenants are dissatisfied by the deal offered and the services given. The amendment would enable the Secretary of State—if satisfied upon inquiry that such complaint is justified — to allow tenants to return to their preferred tenancy under a local authority. Surely that is offering genuine freedom of choice under controlled and obvious circumstances. I hope that the Government will accept that.
I accept that there is parliamentary supervision and that a set of provisions will follow, but the end product should be greater freedom of choice for tenants and the right freely to choose the best deal whether that is in the public or private sector. If the Bill remains unamended, such choice does not exist. It offers one-way traffic only, with no alternative for those people who prefer the public sector.
My amendment would allow such free choice and would operate to overcome the worse possible problems that would be faced by tenants due to inferior landlord services. The amendment tackles the fundamental question: what happens when something goes wrong after tenants have left the public sector for the private sector? The Government have avoided or plainly ignored that problem. The tenants, however, would suffer from the Government's failure to allow use of the obvious available mechanism to address that problem.
The amendment would offer a public sector option to the existing choice. The amendment allows the Secretary of State to approve a public sector landlord when the tenants have complained in writing to the district council about
the financial affairs of, administration of or level of service being offered by such an approved person.
The Secretary of State could then make inquiries, and if he was satisfied that the complaints were justified, the local authority could then step in to solve the problem. That

authority would meet the needs of those tenants. The amendment proposes an orderly system to sort out that problem.
I hope that the Government will not hide behind ideology. I hope that they will go some way towards allowing a wider choice for tenants and ensure a proper coordination between the private and public sector as providers of housing.
The principle behind the amendment has apparently already been accepted for England and Wales by the Government. I refer the Minister to the proceedings of Standing Committee G when the Minister for Housing and Planning said:
we have no difficulty accepting the principle of tenants returning to the local authority if the authority wants to have them. We may need to amend the Bill to make that clear or give assurances."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G. 11 February 1988; c. 810]
That offers a clear undertaking that, for England and Wales, tenants will have the right to return to the public sector. Therefore, there should be absolutely no problem for the Minister to give a similar assurance for Scotland. If not, we are entitled to ask why. The Scottish people will draw a suitable conclusion about the Government and their motivations if such an assurance is not given when the Minister replies.

Mr. John McAllion: I am still a relatively new Member of the House and I have had a limited experience of the Bills that have been passed in any one parliamentary Session. To paraphrase a former member for a Dundee constituency, I believe that rarely has a Bill promised so much yet delivered so little.

Mr. Foulkes: Does my hon. Friend mean Peter Doig?

Mr. McAllion: I was thinking particularly if Winston Churchill—he was a Liberal then.
We have been repeatedly told by the Minister and indeed by every Conservative Member who spoke in Committee — that was not very many — that the Bill represents a major extension of tenants' rights, notably as a result of the provisions in part III regarding the pick-alandlord scheme. Amendment No. 7 specifically refers to that.
Those who seek to exercise the new right that the Minister is so keen to encourage will find that that very act will mean that they will surrender many of the rights that they possess as public sector tenants. The Minister has not confronted that problem. There will be council tenants who will be frustrated by the inability of their local councils to carry out the major repairs required by their houses and who will therefore succumb to the offers of new windows or whatever the potential private sector landlord may dangle in front of them.
Those tenants may well choose to transfer the ownership of their house from the local council to that private sector landlord. As soon as a tenant does so, he or she immediately loses many of the rights that they currently possess. Indeed, in Committee the Minister told us that he spent one night in the Committee that considered the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 defending and promoting the very rights that will be taken as a result of the Bill.
5.45 pm
Tenants stand to lose rights, such as the right to buy their houses. If a tenant moves to a private sector landlord,


he immediately loses the right to buy that house at a discount. It is no use the Minister saying that the private sector landlord and tenant should come to an arrangement between themselves as to what price the landlord may sell the house. The success of the sale of council houses has depended on the fact they have been sold at a discount: had they not been sold at a discount, I do not believe that a single council house would have been sold to a sitting tenant.
Tenants will also lose the right to a secured tenancy that is guaranteed by a cast-iron written lease. If they move to the private sector they will also lose the right ever to choose a landlord again. The right that the Minister is seeking to promote today can be exercised only once. If a tenant makes a mistake in exercising that right, the Ministers answer is, "Well, that's tough. You will have to live with that mistake".
There is no provision for people to return to the public sector if they find themselves in the grip of some Rachman-type landlord who is exploiting them. The Minister believes that that is just hard luck. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) attempts to resolve that problem. That amendment offers tenants an emergency way out, and I hope that the Minister considers it seriously.
Someone may choose a landlord who, to begin with, may seem rational and reasonable. That landlord may offer them new windows, new doors, new heating systems and so on. However, once they are under the control of that landlord, the rents go up and the villainy starts. Those tenants may then wish to get away from that landlord, but they cannot. The Minister must address that problem.
The Bill, far from extending tenants' rights, represents an attack upon them. The Bill also takes away those rights in an indirect manner. Earlier in our discussions, I mentioned the views of tenants in my constituency who are representatives of tenants' organisations, especially in the Whitfield area. They emphasised the importance of being local authority tenants and the many facilities that are made available to them by the local authorities to enable them to come together to organise into a tenants' organisation to try to improve their environment.
The local authority has made available to those tenants a house or flat free of charge and has also given them direct aid in the form of grants to enable them to meet the expense of establishing such tenant organisations.
Without such direct assistance from local authorities, such tenants' organisations could not survive for any length of time. As Part III of the Bill stands, if tenants make a decision to move from the public to the private sector all such facilities will be denied them. The Minister should concede that it is frankly inconceivable that any private sector landlord will make available a house or flat, free of rent, for such tenant organisations.
It is inconceivable that any private landlord would give direct aid in the form of grants to such tenant organisations to enable them to work together in their interests — by their nature, such interests must be in direct conflict with the landlord's interests. The Minister must come to grips with the fact that local authorities in the public sector are different from the private sector and take a much more enlightened view of their relationships with tenants than any private sector landlords.
The Minister came to Dundee and announced a grant of more than £6 million for the Ormiston crescent tenants' co-operative, and everyone was grateful for that. He

should know from his experience, therefore, that tenants in Whitfield were able to form a co-operative because in the previous year they had worked closely with the elected officials of the district council, who had brought them to a state of readiness in which they were able to form the cooperative and make a success of it.
That sort of work will not be done in the private sector; it can only be done in the public sector. By encouraging people to move from the latter to the former, the Minister is encouraging them to give up the potential to form themselves into co-operatives, of which he says he is in favour.
The amendment will give tenants a genuine choice—not the one-sided choice of leaping from the public to the private sector but the choice to do what they want; not, as the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said yesterday, what the Government and Tory Back Benchers think they should want. That is an important distinction, and there is overwhelming evidence of what tenants want.
In Committee, we dealt with the views of Scottish Special Housing Association tenants and discussed whether they were enraptured with the Bill's provisions. The SSHA tenants made it clear that they did not want the new Scottish Homes agency as their landlord. They wanted to remain tenants of the SSHA and to be left alone by the Government. They wanted a ballot in which to make clear exactly what they felt about the Government's propsals, but the Minister denied them that.
The whole affair was summed up by Mr. Derek Mason, the chairman of the SSHA, whom I quoted in Committee as asking what the point of having a ballot was when we already knew what the result would be. Almost all SSHA tenants would vote against the Scottish Homes proposals, yet the Minister has denied them the ballot. We know what the outcome would be, but that does not suit the Government. They favour the ballot box only when the outcome suits them; they are against ballots that vote against their proposals.
Any hon. Member who has attended the scores of public meetings that have been held to discuss Scottish Homes will understand what I am saying. I shall be attending two meetings in Dundee next week that have been organised by tenants' organisations which have come into being since the introduction of this Bill to defend tenants against its attacks on them. Tenants are united in their condemnation of Scottish Homes and demand the right to transfer from the SSHA into the local authority sector, not the private sector. They know that the local authority sector offers them much more in the long term than they can ever possibly get from the private sector, the more so once they have a Government who properly fund local authorities and allow them to provide the services that they are anxious to supply.
This is not only a matter of facilities being provided for tenants' organisations, or the co-operation between local authorities and their tenants that enables the latter to form co-operatives—it is a question of rent levels, too. SSHA tenants will say that they would rather be local authority tenants because that means lower rents. Transferring to the private sector even now means increased rents; transferring to the council sector, lower rents. That is one of the most attractive things about local authorities in tenants' eyes.
It is no good the Minister or his Scottish Back Benchers —none of whom are present—lecturing Scottish local authorities about having far too low rent levels. Dundee


has the second lowest rent levels of any major city in Scotland, but 60 per cent. of its tenants need housing benefit to pay their rents. Nevertheless, the Minister wants to put up those rents and pauperise more tenants. Perhaps he will not be happy until 100 per cent. are on housing benefit, or perhaps he means to drive them all out of the public sector. That is the spirit behind the Bill.
The legislation is a dreadful attack on the public sector provision of housing in Scotland. It is an undisguised onslaught upon it, which is why all who are genuinely interested in tackling Scotland's housing problems should unite in supporting the amendments.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): rose—

Mr. Sam Galbraith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order and fair that the Minister should have to stand at the Dispatch Box discussing a subject of which he has but a tenuous grasp, without the support of any of his Scottish Back Benchers? Do you have any powers to drag some of those Back Benchers—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We had better get on with the debate.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad to respond to the debate. The hon. Member for East Lothain (Mr. Home Robertson) asked why there was a need for the tenants' choice provisions, as much of the progress that has already been made towards co-operatives is being made without legislation. The answer is that disposals of local authority property to co-operatives require both the Secretary of State's approval and the co-operation of the local authorities. The Bill extends rights to tenants to transfer, whether or not the local authority agrees and without the need for approval by the Secretary of State — so it represents an extension of opportunity and choice.
The hon. Member for East Lothian said that it was important to have guidance in an appropriate form for local authority tenants. Under clause 2(2)(e), appropriate guidance and advice will be given by Scottish Homes to tenants, and rightly so.
The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) asked what would happen if something went wrong. It would be the responsibility of Scottish Homes to approve a landlord and monitor the situation, and to help to avoid any problem arising. If one arose, it would be the responsibility of Scottish Homes to ensure that another housing association took over. If that was not possible, the landlord division of Scottish Homes would have to take responsibility. That was an important point that we considered in Committee.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The blindingly obvious alternative is to say that local authorities, which have housing, could also solve that problem, so why not use the existing mechanism?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There are a number of reasons why not. We believe in extending opportunity and choice, but local authorities in some areas already have 80 per cent. of the stock. If we gave the right to transfer to local authorities within the public sector and from the

private sector back to the public sector, that would lead to a perpetual merry-go-round and cause a bureaucratic nightmare.

Mr. McAllion: Does the Minister accept that he should be trying to facilitate what the tenants want, not what the Government want? If tenants in a given area decide that they all want to be local authority tenants, that is a matter for them, not for the Minister or me.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We are approaching the matter highly pragmatically by giving an extension of opportunity, whether or not that opportunity is taken up; that is a matter for the tenants, as the hon. Gentleman says. If they do not want to take it up, they will not.
It is correct that accurate information will have to be given to tenants well before any choice could be exercised under the Bill. If tenants, however, do not want to transfer, that will be the end of the matter—

Mr. Andrew Welsh: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Amendment No. 7 seeks, first, to open up the tenants' choice provisions to allow transfer to public sector landlords and, secondly, to create a role in tenants' choice transfer procedures for local rent assessment committees. I do not believe the House should accept either purpose.
Part III of the Bill seeks to widen the choice of tenure available to tenants in the public sector. In many areas, as I mentioned, choice is severely restricted, with many areas having 60 per cent. local authority housing, and in some it is almost as high as 80 per cent. Amendment No. 7 would increase local authorities' holdings and thus intensify the difficulties that they face in providing a satisfactory level of service for their tenants. That is not the purpose of part III of the Bill. Our aim is to diversify tenure, not to reinforce existing near-monopolies—

Mr. Galbraith: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall make one further point and then allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene.
Of course, the provisions in this part of the Bill which preclude transfer from one public sector landlord to another, except to Scottish Homes, do not rule out completely tenants transferring to public sector landlords. The Secretary of State can, for example, under section 12(7) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, approve sales by a local authority of any of its stock. As I said in Committee, this power has been used on a number of occasions. For example, the transfer of large numbers of houses from Glasgow district council to the SSHA in Castlemilk and the transfer of stock to housing co-operatives, are covered by this section.
Moreover, it will still be possible for a local authority, without consent, to acquire property under section 2(1)(c) and section 9 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 if it wishes to do so, and provided it is prepared to give priority, within its capital allocation, to the purchase. Such property could, I believe, include tenanted property, and any such transfers would in practice require the tenants' consent. I repeat that the provisions in part III do not rule out transfers to public sector authorities under other arrangements.

6 pm

Mr. Galbraith: I must come back to the point that I made, because the Minister talks about diversifying the


tenure. Why will he not allow the tenure to be the choice of the tenant? Will he diversify the tenure by forcing tenants in one direction? This is a disgraceful example of the Government's political eugenics. Why will the Minister not allow tenants to make their own choice? Why must he force them against their wishes to go for a form of tenancy that they do not want? Why can they not have the choice?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There is no question of any compulsion. This is an extension of opportunity, and in due course it will be entirely a matter for tenants as to whether they take up that opportunity.

Mr. Galbraith: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No, I shall not give way. I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question. There is quite clearly no element of compulsion. That was the essence of the hon. Gentleman's question, and I have answered it. He may not like the answer, but I repeat that there is no way in which there will be any element of compulsion in the proposals that I am putting before the House.

Mr. John McFall: I should like to ask the Minister for information about co-operatives. If some cooperatives decide to transfer to a private landlord and others do not, are the individual rights of people guaranteed, or will the transfer be subject to a majority decision of the tenants? I am interested in individual cases.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In the two kinds of cooperatives that I know—management co-operatives and ownership co-operatives— the decision about forming a co-operative is a matter for the tenants. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is a novel one that I have not heard about. He spoke about a co-operative transferring to a different form of ownership. An ownership cooperative is owned by the tenants, and that is a matter for them.
I shall now return to the role suggested in the amendment for local rent assessment committees. When considering applications for approval for prospective new landlords, Scottish Homes will of course be expected to conduct careful inquiries. In guiding Scottish Homes in the exercise of its duties, the Secretary of State will encourage it to maintain the closest possible links with local bodies, and particularly with local authorities.
We would not wish to impose on Scottish Homes, when it exercises its various duties under the Bill, a statutory requirement to consult any particular body, whether it be the local authority, the local rent assessment committee or whatever. Nor do we think it reasonable to impose on Scottish Homes a requirement that all approvals must set a limit to the number of houses any receiving landlord can acquire. Clause 54(2) (c) already allows Scottish Homes to impose such a limit where it believes that this is required.
Amendment No. 7 suggests, in effect, a requirement that any private sector receiving landlord should go through two approval processes, by Scottish Homes and by the local rent assessment committee. This double approval mechanism is neither necessary nor desirable. I repeat that we cannot support the inclusion of public sector housing authorities as receiving landlords.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the Scottish Office issued any guidelines to local rent assessment committees? If it has, what criteria do those guidelines suggest?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman asks about guidelines. I imagine that he is posing his question in the context of tenants' choice. I can tell the hon. Gentleman what I have said in Committee—that the fullest possible information will have to be made available to tenants. The hon. Gentleman's question may well be a future question for consideration by Scottish Homes when it has been set up.

Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is the Minister.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I agree, but the hon. Gentleman must appreciate that when a responsible body such as Scottish Homes is set up, it has a responsibility to take seriously its duties as they are set out in the Bill. The Secretary of State has power under the Bill to give directions if Scottish Homes does not properly carry out its responsibilities.
I should now like to speak to amendment No. 160. I suspect that the amendment as drafted goes rather further than intended. It would mean that, once a landlord had been approved by Scottish Homes as a receiving landlord under this part of the Bill, a majority of that landlord's tenants could petition the Secretary of State to hold a public inquiry. The tenants coming together in this way need not include any who had transferred to the landlord under the tenants' choice provisions.
The amendment suggests not just a return ticket to the public sector in the unlikely event of an approved landlord letting down its new tenants, but a possible transfer to the public sector of other tenants of that landlord or, for example, tenants of a housing association who have had no previous link with the public sector. We see part Ill as a means of breaking down local authority monopolies. The amendment could well tend to reinforce monopolies.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: If the democratic majority of tenants have a crummy landlord and wish to have a better housing service, and if they could get that from the public sector, why should they not have that democratic right of choice?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman says that if a housing association is set up and a majority of tenants say that they wish to transfer to a local authority, they should have the power to do that. That is certainly not part of our proposals. For example, if a company did up a block of flats and the majority of tenants said that they wanted to transfer to the local authority, that would virtually amount to compulsory purchase, and that is certainly not part of our proposals.
Let us look at the amendment in more detail. First, Scottish Homes' approval to receiving landlords will not be given lightly, and Scottish Homes will be expected to monitor approved landlords" performance. Many of the receiving landlords under tenants' choice will be registered housing associations, responsibility for which will be taken over by Scottish Homes from the Housing Corporation in Scotland. In such cases, Scottish Homes can and will take action to safeguard the position of tenants long before the difficulties that the amendment suggests might occur would reach the state of affairs suggested.
If Scottish Homes' advice and assistance fails to prevent the level of service offered by the landlord from deteriorating in the way suggested, what the amendment proposes would be equivalent to compulsory purchase.


The local authority would be given the right to acquire property from the private sector. There is a very considerable difference in principle between introducing legislation under which rights are given to acquire property from the public sector, where public money has been involved in providing the property, and seeking to permit compulsory removal of property from the private sector. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendments; otherwise, I shall have to ask the House to oppose them.
The hon. Member for East Lothian said that concessions had been promised in the English Bill to recognise the possibility of tenants who had transferred from the public sector returning to local authorities. It has been suggested that a similar concession should be made in Scottish legislation. The positions are not exactly comparable. For example, the undertaking given by the Minister for Housing and Planning in the Department of the Environment does not relate to transfer under tenants' choice provisions. That undertaking was given in the context of the English housing action trust provisions. We should not confuse the two initiatives.
Under tenants' choice, the tenant has complete discretion on the question of whether to seek a new landlord. That is not the case under English housing action trust proposals. It is not unreasonable, therefore, that, when the trust is disposing of housing stock, tenants who so wish should be able to move back to the local authority, if the authority wishes to resume landlord responsibilities. I must make it clear that housing action trusts form no part of the Scottish legislative proposals. It is therefore very much a red herring to complain that undertakings given in another debate in a different context have not been repeated in our consideration of the legislation.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned a code of conduct. We discussed on many occasions in Committee the question of ensuring that landlords who are in receipt of public money or who are approved for the purposes of tenants' choice provide a good housing service to their tenants. There is a variety of ways of achieving that and different methods may be appropriate for different circumstances. It may be sensible to have different mechanisms relating to registered housing associations and to approve tenants' choice landlords. I am aware that various proposals have been discussed in England, but, given our Scottish Homes proposals, it would be sensible to consider separately the right approach for Scotland.

Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister said that the Government were opposed to the principle of compulsory purchase in the context of the amendment moved by the Opposition. That must be the most spectacular example of doublespeak that has come from any Minister, although we are accustomed to the Minister becoming confused in the context of the legislation. If the Minister is opposed to the principle of compulsory purchase, why is part III in the Bill? It provides for the compulsory purchase by private landlords of public sector property whatever the broader interests of the local communities might be.
The Minister frequently parrots the slogan that this part of the Bill extends tenants' rights. He should not believe the briefs put in front of him by his officials at the Scottish Office. He will find that it does no such thing. The

Bill establishes rights for ambitious landlords to acquire public property at low prices. It is a lucky dip for profiteering landlords. The Minister knows that and the House should be aware of that. This is blatantly one-sided legislation because it allows the private sector to acquire public assets at knockdown prices, but establishes no parallel right, even where there may be an overwhelming case, for private sector propery to be taken over by the public sector, when the tenants desperately want that. The tenants have no rights in that respect. The only rights built into this part of the legislation are for acquiring landlords.
The Minister made it clear that the Government are simply expressing their prejudice against local authority housing in spite of the fact that he knows perfectly well that the majority of people who want to rent their houses in Scotland would prefer to rent on a secure basis with a fair rent in the public sector.
If the Minister is not aware of that, as he happens to be one of my constituents, I invite him to come along on a Saturday to one of my surgeries in the town where he lives. He will be able to hear the views of private sector tenants who would like to choose the option to move into the public sector, but cannot do so because the Government will not allow the local authorities to provide the housing required.
The Government are denying opportunities for many tenants in Scotland. There is no support for their measure. That is borne out by the fact that no Scottish Tory Back Benchers have come along to speak in support of the Government. They have not even been present in the Chamber during the debate.
There is no case for the Government's proposals, but there is every case for amendment No. 7 and I urge the House to support it.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House to speak again?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Leave withheld. The hon. Gentleman cannot speak again. He does not have the right of reply. His amendment has not been moved.

Mr. Welsh: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 421 of "Erskine May".

Question put, That the amendment be made :—

The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 233.

Division No. 242]
[6.16 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Blair, Tony


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Bradley, Keith


Allen, Graham
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Alton, David
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Armstrong, Hilary
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ashdown, Paddy
Buchan, Norman


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Buckley, George J.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Callaghan, Jim


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Beckett, Margaret
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Beith, A. J.
Canavan, Dennis


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bidwell, Sydney
Clay, Bob






Clelland, David
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lewis, Terry


Cohen, Harry
Litherland, Robert


Coleman, Donald
Livingstone, Ken


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Livsey, Richard


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Corbett, Robin
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Corbyn, Jeremy
Loyden, Eddie


Cousins, Jim
McAllion, John


Cox, Tom
McAvoy, Thomas


Crowther, Stan
McCartney, Ian


Cryer, Bob
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cummings, John
McFall, John


Dalyell, Tam
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Darling, Alistair
McKelvey, William


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McLeish, Henry


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McNamara, Kevin


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McTaggart, Bob


Dewar, Donald
McWilliam, John


Dixon, Don
Madden, Max


Dobson, Frank
Marek, Dr John


Doran, Frank
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Douglas, Dick
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Maxton, John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Meacher, Michael


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Meale, Alan


Eadie, Alexander
Michael, Alun


Eastham, Ken
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fatchett, Derek
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morgan, Rhodri


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Flannery, Martin
Mullin, Chris


Flynn, Paul
Murphy, Paul


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Nellist, Dave


Foster, Derek
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foulkes, George
O'Brien, William


Fraser, John
O'Neill, Martin


Galbraith, Sam
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Galloway, George
Parry, Robert


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Patchett, Terry


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Pendry, Tom


George, Bruce
Pike, Peter L.


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Prescott, John


Gordon, Mildred
Primarolo, Dawn


Gould, Bryan
Quin, Ms Joyce


Graham, Thomas
Radice, Giles


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Randall, Stuart


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Richardson, Jo


Grocott, Bruce
Robertson, George


Hardy, Peter
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Rogers, Allan


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Rooker, Jeff


Heffer, Eric S.
Ruddock, Joan


Henderson, Doug
Salmond, Alex


Hinchliffe, David
Sedgemore, Brian


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Sheerman, Barry


Home Robertson, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hood, Jimmy
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Skinner, Dennis


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Howells, Geraint
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hoyle, Doug
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Snape, Peter


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Steinberg, Gerry


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Stott, Roger


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Strang, Gavin


Illsley, Eric
Straw, Jack


Ingram, Adam
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Janner, Greville
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


John, Brynmor
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Vaz, Keith


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Wall, Pat


Kirkwood, Archy
Wallace, James


Lamond, James
Walley, Joan


Leadbitter, Ted
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)





Wareing, Robert N.
Worthington, Tony


Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Wray, Jimmy


Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)



Wilson, Brian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winnick, David
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Wise, Mrs Audrey
Mrs. Llin Golding.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Aitken, Jonathan
Dover, Den


Alexander, Richard
Dunn, Bob


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Eggar, Tim


Allason, Rupert
Fallon, Michael


Amess, David
Farr, Sir John


Amos, Alan
Favell, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Forman, Nigel


Ashby, David
Forth, Eric


Atkinson, David
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Franks, Cecil


Baldry, Tony
Freeman, Roger


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
French, Douglas


Batiste, Spencer
Fry, Peter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gale, Roger


Bendall, Vivian
Gardiner, George


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Benyon, W.
Gill, Christopher


Bevan, David Gilroy
Glyn, Dr Alan


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Goodlad, Alastair


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bottomley, Peter
Grylls, Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bowis, John
Harris, David


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Haselhurst, Alan


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hayward, Robert


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Brazier, Julian
Hind, Kenneth


Bright, Graham
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hunter, Andrew


Budgen, Nicholas
Irvine, Michael


Burns, Simon
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Burt, Alistair
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Butcher, John
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Butler, Chris
Kilfedder, James


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Knapman, Roger


Carrington, Matthew
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Carttiss, Michael
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Cash, William
Knox, David


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Lang, Ian


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Lawrence, Ivan


Chapman, Sydney
Lee, John (Pendle)


Chope, Christopher
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Colvin, Michael
Lightbown, David


Cope, John
Li 1 ley, Peter


Cormack, Patrick
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Cran, James
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Critchley, Julian
McCrindle, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Curry, David
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Day, Stephen
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Devlin, Tim
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Madel, David


Dorrell, Stephen
Malins, Humfrey






Mans, Keith
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Shersby, Michael


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sims, Roger


Mellor, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Miller, Hal
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Miscampbell, Norman
Squire, Robin


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Steen, Anthony


Moate, Roger
Stern, Michael


Monro, Sir Hector
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshin N)


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Sumberg, David


Moss, Malcolm
Summerson, Hugo


Neale, Gerrard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Neubert, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Page, Richard
Thornton, Malcolm


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Tracey, Richard


Pawsey, James
Tredinnick, David


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Porter, David (Waveney)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Portillo, Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Powell, William (Corby)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Price, Sir David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Raffan, Keith
Warren, Kenneth


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Watts, John


Rathbone, Tim
Wells, Bowen


Redwood, John
Wheeler, John


Renton, Tim
Widdecombe, Ann


Riddick, Graham
Wilkinson, John


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wilshire, David


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wolfson, Mark


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wood, Timothy


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Woodcock, Mike


Ryder, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Sackville, Hon Tom



Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Tellers for the Noes:


Scott, Nicholas
Mr. Tony Durant and


Shaw, David (Dover)
Mr. David Maclean.


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 55

APPLICATION TO EXERCISE RIGHTS CONFERRED BY THIS PART AND OFFER TO SELL

Amendments made: No. 67, in page 32, line 18, at end insert—
'In this subsection, "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
No. 68, in page 32, line 22, at end insert
`and in this subsection the reference to a tenant's or joint tenant's spouse includes a person of the opposite sex who is living with the tenant or joint tenant as if he or she were the tenant's or joint tenant's husband or wife.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 56

VARIATION OF CONDITIONS

Amendment made: No. 69, in page 33, line 39, after `Tribunal' insert
`for Scotland (hereinafter in this Part of this Act referred to as the Lands Tribunal)'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 57

NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE

Amendment made: No. 70, in page 34, line 21, after `period', insert `immediately'. — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 59

REFERENCE TO LANDS TRIBUNAL

Amendments made: No. 71, in page 35, line 6, at end insert—
'(bb) the Lands Tribunal has made a finding under section 58(3) above and the landlord has not, within 2 months, duly progressed the application in accordance with that finding.'.
No. 72, in page 35, line 13, leave out from `under' to end of line 16 and insert
`subsection (1) above, it shall consider whether any of paragraphs (a) to (c) thereof apply and, if it so finds, it may serve an offer to sell notice and do otherwise as the landlord `might do in pursuance of such notice; and anything done by it under this subsection shall have effect as if done by the landlord'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 62

ABOLITION OF LOCAL AUTHORITY'S POWER TO REFER PART VII CONTRACTS TO RENT ASSESSMENT COMMITTEES

Amendment made: No. 73, in page 36, line 12, leave out from beginning to `shall' and insert
`sections 66(1), 68 and 71(1) of that Act the words "or the local authority" in each place where they occur'. — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 64

RENT OFFICERS: ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS RELATING TO HOUSING BENEFIT ETC

Mr. Home Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 36, line 23, leave out Clause 64.
The amendment would delete an obnoxious clause relating to housing benefit, which is supposed to deal with the likelihood that high rents in the private sector might become an excessive burden on the housing benefit system. One might expect a mechanism to be provided to enable the rent officer to restrict rents in such cases and, to stop unscrupulous landlords from profiteering at the expense of tenants on low incomes in the housing benefit system, but that is too much to hope for from this Government. Instead, they propose to penalise the tenant if the landlord forces him to pay an excessive rent.
Rents are certain to increase under the Bill. That is the deliberate strategy of the Government. Indeed, such rudimentary controls as used to exist to prevent rent increases of more than 25 per cent. in any one year are being swept away elsewhere in the Bill.
The innovation is taking place against the background of the drastic cuts in social security and housing benefit to be introduced in a few weeks' time. We are indebted to Edinburgh city district council for making figures available showing exactly how the new system will bear on those claiming housing benefit in the city of Edinburgh. Of a total of 24,000 housing benefit claimants, no fewer than 19,000 will be worse off as a result of the changes to be


introduced next month. Some 2,000 of those claimants will lose housing benefit altogether, while 17,000 will lose a proportion of their benefit. The average loss to the 19,000 who will be worse off will be £6·42 per week.
If any of those people happen to be private sector tenants in a house which, strictly speaking, is bigger than they need, or in a house of good quality in a high value area of the city, the landlord will be able to force the rent up under the assured tenancy system that the Government have so generously provided. The Government talk about "freely negotiated rents" and the assured tenancy system. We know what that really means : in areas where there is a shortage of housing—in most areas of Scotland, that is—the landlord will be able to dictate the rents and tenants will find themselves having to offer a high rent or do without housing.
The local authorities, which act as the Government's agents in the housing benefit system, will be obliged to take direction from the rent officer on the level of rent that can be subsidised. The rent officer will have no power to restrict the rent, regardless of the quality of the housing or the means of the tenant. He will, however, have a duty to assess whether a tenant is living in a house which is too good or too big and in those circumstances he will have no option but to direct the district council to restrict the payment of housing benefit accordingly.
I was interested to read the advice given by the director of housing for East Lothian, my own district council, to members of that council:
People in situations of severe housing stress such as the homeless are liable to agree to unaffordable rent levels in order to put a roof over their families' head. Without the fairness introduced into the rent fixing process by the Rent Officer they may quickly find arrears building up. If the rent is considered too expensive they may not even be entitled to full Housing Benefit and the new legislation will speed up the eviction process.
My local authority is right to fear the prospect of an increasing number of evictions under the assured tenancy system.
The East Lothian director of housing continues:
It is intended by government that Housing Benefit will be restricted if applicants are living in accommodation considered too large or too expensive for their needs. Any excess Benefit paid over fixed thresholds will only be subsidised by central government at a rate of 25 per cent. compared to the standard rate of 97 per cent. The Council will therefore have to devote extra resources to these cases and it is not yet clear how such actions will be viewed by auditors.
Consequently it is possible that an elderly widow in a three bedroom house no longer occupied by her family will not receive full Housing Benefit and will be forced to move to smaller accommodation perhaps in another town or village.
Presumably it is indeed the Government's intention to force people on low incomes into ghettos of cheap housing. I was interested to read in the Edinburgh evening newspaper on Tuesday 8 March that Edinburgh city district council has found a private sector landlord who had acquired some property designed not to house people but to house pigs — a pigsty on a farm — which he intended to convert into bed-sits for the unemployed, who would then benefit from the housing benefits system. That is an example of the kind of landlord that the Bill will encourage. Such activity would be deplored by any responsible Government, but unfortunately this Government cannot be described as responsible.
I am especially worried about the position of elderly or disabled people who have moved into sheltered housing on the understanding that their rent will be covered by the

housing benefit system. I suspect that more and more of them will find themselves in difficulties, as has happened already under recent changes in the housing benefit system.
A further clear illustration of the Government's twisted thinking on the subject is to be found in the Scottish Development Department consultation document "Deregulation of the Private Rented Sector: Consultation Paper on the Implication for Housing Benefit", which was issued in December 1987. Paragraph 3 of that document says:
With an increasing proportion of rents in future not subject to statutory rent control, it will be particularly important to ensure, where a tenant's rent is being met, in whole or in part, by public funds through housing benefit, that the rent which attracts such support is not unreasonable.
So far, so good. One might conclude that it would be logical to do something about excessively high rents, but that is not going to happen.
Paragraph 5 of the consultation paper says:
The Government also intend to provide, as soon as the necessary information for setting limits is available, that benefit should not be payable in full on the rents for the most expensive privately rented properties in each local authority area. The Government will introduce further limits on benefit should that prove necessary.
That seems to us to be the wrong way of approaching the problem.
Paragraph 23 states:
In due course it is intended that regulations will he made by the Secretary of State for Social Services specifying where the necessary limit will be set. Once such regulations are made, in cases where the rent is above the limit, the local authority will calculate benefit on rent only up to the limit specified.
But here comes the rub:
If the claimant chooses to remain in accommodation with a higher rent, he will have to make up the difference from his own resources. Subsidy will, of course, only be paid on benefit awarded on rent up to the limit.
One can imagine a father desperate to house his family finding that his only choice was to avail himself of overpriced private rented housing. Within weeks of taking on that commitment he could find that his rent was not covered by housing benefit. He would then be in terrible trouble because he would not be able to pay his rent and his family would face the prospect of homelessness all over again. That would be tragic and the Government should be ashamed of themselves for creating circumstances in which that kind of thing can happen.
It is all too cruelly clear that tenants who depend on the housing benefit system will not have the means to pay higher rents and will therefore face the prospect of losing their homes. Clause 64 is a vicious clause which should be taken out of the Bill, and I sincerely hope that the House will find ways of compelling the Government to think again.

Mr. Bruce Millan: I fully support everything that my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has said about the clause, which is offensive even judged by the standards of the rest of the Bill. As I understand it, two sets of circumstances will be dealt with by the clause. I hope that the Minister will not just read out from the bits of paper in front of him when he replies. That is exactly what he did last night in speaking to new clause 16, which is closely related to this amendment. Had new clause 16 been accepted, there


would be no need for clause 64, even on the Government's arguments. I hope that the Minister will answer the points put to him.
Clause 64 is offensive in two respects. First, it provides for a judgment about whether accommodation is excessive. There is no such judgment in relation to mortgage interest relief. When one applies for mortgage interest relief no one asks whether one really needs such a big house and whether one should not perhaps move into something smaller and cheaper and have one's mortgage interest relief reduced.
Many private tenants live in very poor conditions— they will continue to do so under the assured tenancy system—and I find it very offensive that they should be asked to justify the accommodation in which they live, given that the desperate shortage of rented accommodation means that many of them will have been forced into the houses that they occupy. That is offensive enough, but what the Government intend to do with rent levels is more than offensive—it is a scandal.
The clause can operate in terms of rents only if the rent officer determines that the rent is excessive. One would imagine that there would be a mechanism for reducing rents. Why should an unjustifiably high rent, as determined by a rent officer, continue to be paid, irrespective of whether the tenant is on housing benefit? The Government, however, propose that, if a rent officer decides that the rent is too high, housing benefit should be reduced accordingly, but the rent should remain the same. There will then be a gap between the housing benefit payable and the rent. As we are talking about poorer people, the difference obviously cannot be made up out of income. Tenants will therefore be pushed out of their homes.
Clause 64 protects taxpayers in that housing benefit is controlled. It protects landlords with a vengeance, because even when it is seen that they are taking an unjustifiably high rent, that rent will remain in force. The power of the clause is directed against tenants. We did not get anything like a satisfactory explanation from the Minister last night. He talked about a free market and a willing landlord and a willing tenant negotiating rents on equal terms, but that is a travesty of the facts.
I have experience of these matters from my constituency. We had an unscrupulous and crooked landlord in my constituency. I am glad to say that he is now serving a prison sentence. Tenants are often on social security, and many are vulnerable for other reasons such as physical or mental disability. In those circumstances, and when there is a desperate shortage of housing, it is ludicrous to pretent that there can be free negotiations between a willing landlord and a willing tenant.
This scandal has been exposed time and again, but the Government have done nothing about it. Now they are doing something about it, the changes are at the expense of tenants rather than at the expense of landlords. We must have a proper explanation of the clause. Regardless of any explanation, however, the clause is so deeply offensive that I shall vote against it.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I entirely agree with what has been said about clause 64. If

the amendment is pressed to a Division, I shall support it and recommend that my right hon. and hon. Friends do the same.
I also am worried about the judgment that is to be made by the rent officer. Nothing can amend that power adequately. The only way forward is to remove the clause. The clause embodies a worrying principle, which could be extended. If private tenants are to be affected, what is to stop the principle being extended to private owners who may receive housing benefit but live in mansions? The Government seem to be treating tenants and private owners differently.
6.45 pm
I am worried about subsection (4), which extends the power of rent officers to make investigations and seek information or evidence to determine a claim. We are all familiar with the housing benefit and social security system and section 51 of the Social Security Act 1986. I served on the Committee which considered that Bill, and we spent some time on section 51 because it provides some far-reaching and unconstrained powers for the DHSS concerning inquiries into people's personal circumstances.
The House should be careful about extending such powers to rent officers. We are involving a new type of public official in far-reaching investigations into personal lives. We should not do that lightly, not least because rent officers are not trained in the same way as social security and adjudication officers.
Subsection (3) worries me because it involves the Secretary of State for Social Services in the rent allowance subsidy paid to local authorities in Scotland for housing benefit. The Secretary of State for Social Services will find it difficult to discover what happens in Scotland, where special conditions prevail. How does the Minister envisage subsection (2)(b) being implemented? It refers to making
different provision for different cases or classes of case and for different areas".
What will that mean in terms of the power available to the Secretary of State? These are far-reaching powers. We discussed them in Committee, but the Government have not yet made it sufficiently clear what they mean in practice.
I should like to repeat the now familiar point about the negative resolution procedure provided for in subsection (2)(a). Such regulations should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Clause 64 gives the Secretary of State wide powers. It is wrong to give powers willy-nilly by statutory instrument when it would be perfectly easy to set out on the face of the Bill what the Secretary of State wants to achieve. There are several real difficulties with the clause. There are plenty of bad clauses in the Bill, but clause 64 is probably the worst in that it empowers rent officers to make judgments about what level of housing benefit tenants should be entitled to.

Mr. McAllion: I agree that clause 64 is the most detestable in the Bill. The very idea of a public official being sent around to label people as unfit to occupy their accommodation is thoroughly offensive.
The clause really has all the hallmarks of stigmatising poverty that I thought society was beginning to leave behind. When local authorities used to have the power to clothe children whose parents were too poor to provide clothing for them, some local authorities were insensitive enough to make those children go to one particular retailer


to get one particular type of clothing. Therefore, those children were easily spotted at school and were stigmatised for being poor. That was deeply resented by poor people. Clause 64 will also be deeply resented if the Government do not back down.
Will the Minister clarify the point that I raised with him in Committee? During Second Reading, the Secretary of State for Scotland was very clear about how he interpreted
clause 64. He said:
a local authority will be required to refer to the rent officer every rent for which it has received an application for housing benefit. The rent officer will then determine whether the rent payable is appropriate for the property.
The rent officer will consider whether
the tenant is … over-accommodated or … the accommodation is of a quality that few people could ordinarily afford.
That seems quite clear, but the Secretary of State for Scotland qualified that by saying:
We are talking not about existing tenants, but about a new tenancy.
That suggests that clause 64 will apply only to those tenants who move into new assured tenancies and short assured tenancies that will be prevalent in the private rented sector.
In Committee, when I pressed the Minister on that point, I used as an example my parents who live in a council house and receive housing benefit. The house used to accommodate all my family, but now it accommodates only my mother and father. Therefore, they would be over-accommodated. The Minister assured me that it would not apply to them.
On Second Reading my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) gave the Secretary of State for Scotland the example of his parents, who also live in a council house in which they brought up their children. My hon. Friend asked the Secretary of State for Scotland:
If one of them should die, the other would be left occupying a house with three bedrooms, a dining room, a kitchen and a sitting room. Will that be gross over-accommodation for the partner who is left?
If the Secretary of State had known what he was talking about, he would have said that it would not apply to my hon. Friend's parents because they are renting in the public sector and clause 64 does not apply to the public sector. However, the Secretary of State did not say that. He said:
I will not try to give a definition … For the simple reason that Opposition Members would attack any definition that I might give as showing an indefensible rigidity and inflexiblity of approach." — [Official Report, 11 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 50–53.]
The Secretary of State's answer implied that clause 64 will apply equally to the public sector and the independent rented sector.
Will the Minister make absolutely clear to which sector clause 64 will apply and will he explain why the Secretary of State for Scotland did not know what he was talking about on Second Reading?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can tell the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) straight away that clause 64 has nothing to do with public sector tenants and with registered rent tenants in the private sector. When the Secretary of State was asked that general question, I think that he was thinking in terms of the definition of over-accommodation. I shall come to that later in my remarks.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian) obviously disagrees with the policy. I respect his point of view, but I must say that the premise upon which the Bill is based is that the private rented sector will he substantially increased. The right hon. Gentleman may find it offensive that the market should play a part in this matter, but if a landlord imposes an excessive rent, in future there will be increased opportunities for tenants in the private rented sector. I will be happy to be reminded of these remarks in a few years' time, when the effects of the Bill will be seen very much more clearly.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) asked about qualification. I will look into the matter, but my interpretation of the subsection to which he referred is that account must be taken of particular special circumstances. That certainly should happen.
I appreciate the active imagination of Opposition Members about clause 64. The Government's intention is certainly not sinister; it is simple and reasonable, and seeks to prevent abuse of the housing benefit system.
I invite the House to consider the scope for abuse in the system as it now operates and as it would operate in future without the protection of the powers to be taken under clause 64. In future, a tenant who applied for housing benefit would have his application assessed according to his ability to pay the rent for the accommodation where he has chosen to live. The actual level of rent would not affect his entitlement.
The rent could be for excessively large or expensive accommodation, or quite ridiculously high for the accommodation itself, but the rent would be paid in full or in part from housing benefit unless the local authority decided to restrict the benefit. The system would he wide open to abuse. I challenge Opposition Members to adduce any good reason for the taxpayer, through the State, to pay rents which are obviously excessive or rents for people living in accommodation which is far beyond their needs.

Mr. Bob McTaggart: The Minister must realise that single parents and unmarried mothers have children at university who come to stay with them when the universities are in recess; therefore, they keep a spare room for their children. Under the Bill, many people would be deemed to have over-provision in their homes because they wanted to keep a spare room for one of their kids to join them during the holidays. That could happen under clause 64.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In relation to over-accommodation, I am pleased to tell the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart) that we are aware of the difficulties which might arise in such circumstances —for example, if someone dies or if relatives move out because they are students or for some other reason. That is one of the many subjects which are now being carefully considered in the discussions with local authority associations. I can say no more than that at this stage.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No. I should like to move on to my next point.
Clause 64 gives the Secretary of State the power to require rent officers to perform such functions as he may specify by statutory instrument. The intention — I am talking about the procedure—is that rent officers will make an assessment of rent whenever a tenant of a private


landlord applies for housing benefit. If the rent officer considers that the rent may be unreasonably high, he will carry out a valuation. If that establishes that the rent should be lower, the maximum rate of Exchequer subsidy will be paid only on housing benefit in respect of the assessed rent.
However, local authorities will still have the discretion to pay benefit in respect of a higher rent, but I should make it quite clear in this connection that local authorities will have the flexibility to assist in special cases — for example, with higher rent for a few weeks to give the tenant the time and opportunity for the situation to be sorted out. It is quite possible that local authorities might wish to use that flexibility, but there will be no Exchequer subsidy on the excess.
Rent officers will assess reasonable rents on the basis of guidance issued by my right hon. and learned Friend. A reasonable rent will be the market rent. Where there is insufficient evidence of market rents for comparable properties, the rent officer will make an assessment by taking account of appropriate yields which might be expected from investment in the private rented sector.

Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: When they assess the rent, will the rent officers make sure that the money that the tenants receive from the Government will be decreased? The local authorities will have the right to assist for a couple of weeks until things are sorted out. What does that mean? Who sorts out what? A landlord can charge whatever he wishes, so who sorts out the difference between what the Government will pay and what the tenant has to pay the landlord?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: A local authority will have the flexibility to assist in special circumstances—for example, if a tenant's circumstances change. We believe that the provisions will act as a brake on excessive rents and make it very much harder for rents to be increased.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the orders that the Secretary of State will be able to make under clause 64 make clear the procedure that is available to aggrieved tenants who wish to appeal against a rent officer's decision?

7 pm

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The answer is probably no, but I shall look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman.
The rent that is set by a rent officer will not be the maximum rent that can be charged for a house. The landlord will be able to charge a higher rent if he can find a tenant who is willing to pay it, but in practice we believe that these provisions will act a serious brake on private sector rents generally, because tenants receiving housing benefit will continue to be a very significant proportion of all private sector tenants.
When examining a claim for housing benefit, the rent officer will also have to consider whether the tenant is over-accommodated. Again, the rent officer will apply the criteria to be laid down by my right hon. and learned Friend. If, according to these criteria, the claimant is found to be over-accommodated, housing benefit subsidy will be restricted to the rent that would have been payable on a house of a size that is appropriate to the claimant's need.
Opposition Members have expressed concern about the position of somebody who is living in over-large accommodation, purely because the house was a family home but the other members of the family have moved away or died. I fully understand that point and it is being considered in the discussions that are taking place between Government Departments and local authority associations.

Mr. Dunnachie: The Minister is telling us that if an old person is living in a house or apartment that is too big for him, the adjudication officer will be able to say that, rent-wise, that person, in his opinion, requires different accommodation and should be evicted.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That is not what I am saying. The matter is being discussed with the local authorities. The points that were raised in Standing Committee and in the House will be taken into account.
I am now in a position to give an authoritative answer to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). It is that this matter is under consideration. I shall make certain that he knows what the final outcome is.
Contrary to what has been suggested, there is nothing draconian about the new tests of excessively large or expensive accommodation. The tests will be applied fairly and with discretion. They are necessary because the Government are obliged to support tenants and also to prevent the abuse of public funds.

Mr. Home Robertson: I think that that was a plea of guilty, but it was a confused plea of guilty. The answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) is that it must be the bailiff who will have to sort out the problem. If a tenant were in an assured tenancy, he would have no security if he was unable to pay his rent. He would be put out into the street. That is the serious answer to the serious question that was asked by my hon. Friend. Not for the first time during our deliberations, the Minister refused to answer the question and to face up to the consequences of his legislation.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Surely my hon. Friend is wrong to suggest that it would be up to the bailiff. However, it is for the Minister, with all the knowledge that he has displayed at the Dispatch Box, to rise and contradict him.

Mr. Home Robertson: I should be very happy to give way to the Minister if he would like to refute that point, but I am afraid that there is absolutely no way in which he can do so. It is irrefutable. That is what the Government are legislating for, and the Minister knows it. He must be even deeper into cloud cuckoo land than we thought he was if he is suggesting that the private rented sector will produce a large amount of low-priced rented accommodation to deal with Scotland's tragedy of over 30,000 people becoming homeless every year.
Because of the present shortage of rented housing in Scotland, a shortage that is likely to continue for the foreseeable future, the Minister knows that it is a seller's market and that the market rent is likely to be high. Desperate people will have to pay rents that they cannot afford. As they will have no housing benefit to help them to pay the rent, they could face the prospect all over again of being homeless.
The Government recognise that landlords may try to extract high rents from claimants, but it is bizarre that,


instead of penalising landlords, they intend to penalise tenants. That says all that needs to be said about this Government's philosophy and about the sick minds of the unrepresentative, minority regime in the Scottish Office. Clause 64 is an affront to the people of Scotland. I invite the House to delete it from the Bill.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 198, Noes 226.

Division No. 243]
[7.07 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Foulkes, George


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Fraser, John


Allen, Graham
Galbraith, Sam


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Galloway, George


Armstrong, Hilary
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Ashdown, Paddy
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
George, Bruce


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Barron, Kevin
Golding, Mrs Llin


Beckett, Margaret
Gordon, Mildred


Beith, A. J.
Gould, Bryan


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Graham, Thomas


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bidwell, Sydney
Grocott, Bruce


Blair, Tony
Hardy, Peter


Boyes, Roland
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bradley, Keith
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Henderson, Doug


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hinchliffe, David


Buchan, Norman
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Buckley, George J.
Home Robertson, John


Callaghan, Jim
Hood, Jimmy


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Howells, Geraint


Canavan, Dennis
Hoyle, Doug


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clay, Bob
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cohen, Harry
Illsley, Eric


Coleman, Donald
Ingram, Adam


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Janner, Greville


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
John, Brynmor


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cousins, Jim
Kirkwood, Archy


Cox, Tom
Lamond, James


Crowther, Stan
Leadbitter, Ted


Cryer, Bob
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cummings, John
Lewis, Terry


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Litherland, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Livingstone, Ken


Darling, Alistair
Livsey, Richard


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H't)
Loyden, Eddie


Dewar, Donald
McAllion, John


Dixon, Don
McAvoy, Thomas


Dobson, Frank
McCartney, Ian


Doran, Frank
Macdonald, Calum A.


Douglas, Dick
McFall, John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McKelvey, William


Eadie, Alexander
McNamara, Kevin


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McTaggart, Bob


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
McWilliam, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Madden, Max


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Marek, Dr John


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Flynn, Paul
Maxton, John


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Meacher, Michael


Foster, Derek
Meale, Alan





Michael, Alun
Skinner, Dennis


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Snape, Peter


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Soley, Clive


Morgan, Rhodri
Spearing, Nigel


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Steinberg, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Stott, Roger


Murphy, Paul
Strang, Gavin


Nellist, Dave
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


O'Neill, Martin
Turner, Dennis


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Vaz, Keith


Parry, Robert
Wall, Pat


Patchett, Terry
Wallace, James


Pendry, Tom
Walley, Joan


Pike, Peter L.
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wareing, Robert N.


Primarolo, Dawn
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Radice, Giles
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Randall, Stuart
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Richardson, Jo
Wilson, Brian


Robertson, George
Winnick, David


Robinson, Geoffrey
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rogers, Allan
Worthington, Tony


Rooker, Jeff
Wray, Jimmy


Ruddock, Joan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Salmond, Alex



Sedgemore, Brian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mr. Ken Eastham.


Shore, Rt Hon Peter



NOES


Adley, Robert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Alexander, Richard
Carrington, Matthew


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carttiss, Michael


Allason, Rupert
Cash, William


Amess, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Amos, Alan
Chapman, Sydney


Arbuthnot, James
Chope, Christopher


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Ashby, David
Colvin, Michael


Atkinson, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Cope, John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Cormack, Patrick


Baldry, Tony
Cran, James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Critchley, Julian


Batiste, Spencer
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Curry, David


Bendall, Vivian
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Benyon, W.
Devlin, Tim


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dorrell, Stephen


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Dover, Den


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dunn, Bob


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Durant, Tony


Bottomley, Peter
Eggar, Tim


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fallon, Michael


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Farr, Sir John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Favell, Tony


Bowis, John
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Fookes, Miss Janet


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Forman, Nigel


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brazier, Julian
Forth, Eric


Bright, Graham
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fox, Sir Marcus


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Franks, Cecil


Browne, John (Winchester)
Freeman, Roger


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
French, Douglas


Budgen, Nicholas
Fry, Peter


Burns, Simon
Gale, Roger


Burt, Alistair
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Butler, Chris
Gill, Christopher


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Glyn, Dr Alan






Goodlad, Alastair
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Pawsey, James


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Portillo, Michael


Grylls, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Price, Sir David


Harris, David
Raffan, Keith


Haselhurst, Alan
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hayward, Robert
Rathbone, Tim


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L
Redwood, John


Howard, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hunter, Andrew
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Irvine, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ryder, Richard


Kilfedder, James
Sackville, Hon Tom


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Scott, Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knox, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lang, Ian
Shersby, Michael


Latham, Michael
Sims, Roger


Lawrence, Ivan
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Squire, Robin


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lightbown, David
Steen, Anthony


Lilley, Peter
Stern, Michael


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


McCrindle, Robert
Sumberg, David


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Summerson, Hugo


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Madel, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Malins, Humfrey
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mans, Keith
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Maples, John
Thornton, Malcolm


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tracey, Richard


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Tredinnick, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Mellor, David
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Waller, Gary


Miller, Hal
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Miscampbell, Norman
Warren, Kenneth


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Watts, John


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Wells, Bowen


Moate, Roger
Wheeler, John


Monro, Sir Hector
Whitney, Ray


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Widdecombe, Ann


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Wilkinson, John


Moss, Malcolm
Wilshire, David


Neale, Gerrard
Wolfson, Mark


Nelson, Anthony
Wood, Timothy


Neubert, Michael
Woodcock, Mike


Nicholls, Patrick
Yeo, Tim


Nicholson, David (Taunton)



Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Tellers for the Noes:


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Mr. Alan Howarth and


Oppenheim, Phillip
Mr. David Maclean.


Page, Richard

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 67

FINANCE

Amendment made: No. 74, in page 37, line 28, leave out `in consequence of' and insert 'under' — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 1

SCOTTISH HOMES

Amendment made: No. 27, in page 42, leave out lines 19 to 26 and insert

'Execution of Documents
18. A document is validly executed by Scottish Homes if it is subscribed on its behalf by one of its members or by any other person duly authorised in that behalf.
19. A document shall be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, to have been validly executed by Scottish Homes if it bears to have been subscribed on its behalf by one of its members or by any other person duly authorised in that behalf and to have been sealed with its common seal (whether attested by witnesses or not).'. — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 3

SCOTTISH HOMES: AMENDMENTS OF HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS ACT 1985

Amendment made: No. 146, in page 46, line 49, at end Insert—
'10A. In section 15A—

(a) in subsection (3), for the words from "is", where second occurring, onward there shall be substituted the words—

"(a) was, prior to the specified date, designated as such by the Housing Corporation; or
(b) is, on or after that date, designated as such by Scottish Homes,"

and, in this subsection, "specified date" has the same meaning as in section 3 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988; and
(b) in subsection (4)—

(i) for the words "The Housing Corporation" there shall be substituted the words "Scottish Homes"; and
(ii) in paragraph (b) after the word "designation" there shall be inserted the words "(including a designation made by the Housing Corporation under subsection (3) above as originally enacted)".'. — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 4

TENANCIES WHICH CANNOT BE ASSURED TENANCIES

Amendments made: No. 138, in page 49, line 42, leave out from 'house' to end of line.
No. 141, in page 50, line 3, at end insert—
`(bb) that, at the time when the tenancy was granted, there was an ordinary means of access—

(i) to or from the house by way of that other house; or
(ii) to or from that other house by way of the house

(whether or not that access was available to the tenant as of right'.
No. 142, in page 51, leave out lines 6 to 8.
No. 76, in page 51, line 26, leave out from 'Association' to end of line 27.
No. 77, in page 51, line 33, leave out lines 33 to 36. —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 5

GROUNDS FOR POSSESSION OF HOUSES LET ON ASSURED TENANCIES

Amendments made: No. 79, in page 52, line 29, after `tenant', insert
`not later than the date of commencement of the tenancy'.
No. 80, in page 53, line 50, leave out 'money or money's worth' and insert 'value'.
No. 82, in page 54, line 25, leave out from 'hearing' to `in' in line 26 and insert
`at least three months rent lawfully due from the tenant is'.
No. 3, in page 54, leave out lines 27 to 30.
No. 84, in page 54, line 32, at end insert—

'Ground 11A
Suitable alternative accommodation is available for the tenant or will be available for him when the order for possession takes effect.'.
No. 85, in page 54, line 32, at end insert—

`Ground 11B
The following conditions are fulfilled—

(a) the tenant has given a notice to quit which has expired; and
(b) the tenant has remained in possession of the whole or any part of the house; and
(c) proceedings for the recovery of possession have been begun not more than six months after the expiry of the notice to quit; and
(d) the tenant is not entitled to possession of the house by virtue of a new tenancy.'.

No. 86, in page 54, line 32, at end insert—

'Ground 11C
Whether or not any rent is in arrears on the date on which proceedings for possession are begun, the tenant has persistently delayed paying rent which has become lawfully due.'.
No. 87, in page 55, line 27, leave out from `situated' to end of line and insert
`or, where the house in question is in a new town, of the development corporation established for its purposes under the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968 or, in any case, of Scottish Homes, certifying that the authority, the Corporation or, as the case may be, Scottish Homes'.
No. 88, in page 56, line 2, after 'authority', insert
`or development corporation or by Scottish Homes'.
No. 89, in page 56, line 11, after 'authority', insert
`or development corporation or of Scottish Homes'.
No. 90, in page 56, line 12, leave out 'the authority' and insert 'that body'.
No. 91, in page 56, line 15, leave out 'the authority' and insert 'that body'.
No. 92, in page 56, line 22, after 'authority', insert 'or development corporation'.
No. 93, in page 56, line 23, after 'therein', insert 'or of Scottish Homes'.
No. 94, in page 56, line 24, leave out 'authority' and insert 'body'.
No. 95, in page 56, line 26, leave out 'A local authority' and insert
`Local authorities, development corporations and Scottish Homes'. —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 6

AMENDMENTS TO SCHEDULE I TO RENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1984

Amendments made: No. 96, in page 57, line 26, leave out from 'as' to second `by' in line 27 and insert
`then has occupancy rights under section 18 of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 (rights of cohabiting couples) or, if neither or none of them has such rights, such one of them as may be decided'.
No. 144, in page 57, line 34, leave out 'five' and insert `two'.
No. 145, in page 58, line 4, leave out 'five' and insert `two'.
No. 97, in page 58, line 13, at end add—

`PART II'

STATUTORY TENANTS BY SUCCESSION: MODIFICATION OF ENACTMENTS
10. In relation to the assured tenancy to which the person becomes entitled by succession, section 18 of this Act shall have effect as if in subsection (3) after the word "established" there were inserted the words "or that the circumstances are as specified in any of Cases 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, and 21 in Schedule 2 to the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984".
11.—(1) In relation to the assured tenancy to which the person becomes entitled by succession, any notice given for the purpose of Case 13, Case 14 or Case 16 of Schedule 2 to the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 to the original tenant (within the meaning of Schedule Ito the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984) shall be treated as having been given for the purposes of whichever of Grounds 4 to 6 in Schedule 5 to this Act corresponds to the Case in question.
(2) Where sub-paragraph (1) above applies, the regulated tenancy of the said original tenant shall be treated, in relation to the assured tenancy of the person so entitled, as "the earlier tenancy" for the purposes of Part IV of Schedule 5 to this Act.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton]

Schedule 7

MINOR AMENDMENTS TO THE HOUSING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1987 (C. 26)

Amendments made: No. 98, in page 59, line 10, at end insert—
`14A In section 250 (repairs grants in housing action areas), in subsection (7), in paragraph (b) for "249(5)" there shall be substituted "250(5)".'.
No. 14, in page 59, line 14, at end insert—
'16A. In section 268 (notice of determination) in subsection (4) for the words "1 to 3" and "281, 283 and 284(1)" respectively there shall be substituted the words "2, 3 and 7", and "282, 284 and 285.'
No. 15, in page 59, line 14, at end insert—
`16AA. In section 281 (effect of repurchase on certain existing tenancies) in subsection (2)(b) for the words "34(1)(d) of the Tenants Rights Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980" there shall be substituted the words "9(1)(d) of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984".'.
No. 99, in page 59, line 14, at end insert—
'16A. In section 276 (repurchase by authority other than local authority), in subsection (3), in paragraph (a), for '21' there shall be substituted '20'.'.
No. 16, in page 59, line 21, after '1980', insert
`(notice that tenancy is to be a protected shorthold tenancy)'.
No. 17, in page 59, line 22, after '1984', insert
`(notice that the tenancy is to be a short tenancy'.
No. 18, in page 59, line 22, at end insert—
`18A. In section 285 (request for tenancy under section 282 or 283) in subsection (1)(a) for the words "paragraph 4" there shall be substituted the words "paragraph 3".'.
No. 19, in page 59, line 25, at end insert—
`19A. In section 338 (interpretation) in the definition of "standard amenities" for "244(5)" there shall be substituted "244(6)".'.


United Nations precedents offer the best guarantee that the No. 20, in page 59, line 30, after '8', insert
'(as the case may be)'.
No. 21, in page 59, line 31, at end insert—
'20A. In Schedule 20 (assistance by way of repurchase) in paragraph 3 for the words "a notice" there shall be substituted the words "an offer to purchase".'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 9

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 100, in page 62, line 36, at end insert—
'(5A) In section 177 (statutory tenant to be regarded as lessee for purposes of the Act), in paragraph (a), after '1984' there shall be inserted the words 'or Part II of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988'.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 10

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 139, in page 64, line 1, column 3, at end insert —
'In section 68, the words "or the local authority".'
No. 140, in page 64, line 3, at end insert—
'In section 71(1) the words "or the local authority".'
No. 101, in page 64, column 3, leave out lines 33 to 35.
No. 123, in page 64, line 33, column 3, at beginning insert—
'Section 62(11) to (13).'. — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Title

Amendments made: No. 102, in line 5, after `tenants;', insert
`to make new provision as to limit on discount on the price of houses purchased by secure tenants;'.
No. 103, in line 5, after `tenants;', insert
`to abolish, and make interim provision for the capitalisation of, certain subsidies and contributions relating to housing;'. —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This is a major Bill. Indeed, it is the most important housing legislation for Scotland since the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980. That legislation was badly misjudged by the Opposition of the time, who said that there was insufficient demand for the right to buy. We know now how wrong they were. I am confident that the current opposition to this Bill will, in time, be seen to be equally misjudged as the provisions bring a better quality of life to those living or wishing to live in rented homes.
The Bill has received a detailed and thorough examination by the House. No fewer than 600 amendments were considered in Standing Committee and more than 190 were dealt with on Report. The Bill has been improved substantially as a result of the debates that those amendments generated. We have listened carefully to views expressed both by hon. Members and by interested parties who have followed our debates. I think

it right at this point to mention the considerable effort that has been put into the Bill by many groups who have assisted all parties in the House. I should mention specifically Shelter, Age Concern, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, the Law Society, the Scottish Special Housing Association, the Housing Corporation and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
In many cases, we have been able to respond to reasonable suggestions by making amendments to the Bill, and I have been happy so to do. In all, more than 66 amendments of this nature have been made, although some, of course, were of a minor or technical nature. We have also had a number of matters drawn to our attention on which it may be possible to bring forward further amendments in another place.
In relation to Scottish Homes, the general nature of the legislation within which the new body will work has been confirmed. This will give it the flexibility that we regard as necessary in the future housing scene. At the same time, through amendments, it has been given specific functions in relation to training and research, and its role in relation to all forms of housing has been clearly established. That was the result of an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths).
The doctrine of tacit relocation, one of the ornaments of Scottish law for which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) made a passionate appeal, has been accepted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] My hon. and learned Friend is temporarily absent, but I suspect that he will be tacit only until he is relocated.
In part II, the new tenancies for the private rented sector have drawn much comment. We have been able to respond to many of the suggestions made, and on Report the House approved a broad package of improvements to the assured and short assured tenancy regimes. In addition—the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) raised this in Committee—we have recognised that it was unnecessarily stringent to require a successor to a regulated tenancy to have lived with the tenant for five years. We have therefore reduced the period to two years. That matter was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood).
The provisions of part III, which deals with tenants' choice, have been simplified. There has been recognition that the arrangements proposed in the Bill will meet the needs of Scotland more closely than those proposed for elsewhere. Amendments have been made to give effect to policy proposals in the White Paper which were not in the Bill on its introduction. We have been able to provide for the abolition of certain Exchequer subsidies under arrangements which are acceptable to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
The Bill now incorporates a reasonable compromise between the aspirations of tenants to purchase their homes at a discount and the needs of local authorities. The new provisions for the cost floor should enable more tenants to exercise their right to buy, without their discount being restricted. The Bill gives effect to the majority of the proposals in the White Paper, but legislation alone does not achieve the improvements in the quality of life that we seek. The legislation enables tenants and others seeking a home to exercise more choice and opportunity, and


enables those providing homes to do so with greater diversity. Above all, it enables individuals to take greater responsibility for their own homes.
It cannot go unremarked that the Opposition have no comprehensive policy for housing in Scotland. They are full of criticism for the constructive policies that the Government have put forward and they are always trying to drag down any attempt to move forward in providing better housing, but they have failed to produce one new idea to make progress on the remaining problems of today.
It came as no surprise, therefore, to see the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) claiming recently that, in the unlikely event of his party forming a Government, they will promote housing choice by encouraging local initiatives to develop co-operatives, housing associations and owner-occupation. Having failed to devise policies of its own, the Labour party adopts those of our policies which seem most popular—those which we have pursued successfully since 1980. I am only sorry that the hon. Member for East Lothian does not acknowledge that and join us in achieving what appear to be our common aims.
Instead, there has been a continuing campaign of misinformation bordering on the irresponsible. Despite repeated assertions to the contrary from the Opposition and irresponsible interests outside, the Bill contains not a word of compulsion on tenants—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) wishes to know, the leaflet put out in the summer by NALGO to SSHA tenants was highly irresponsible. There are many copies of that leaflet available.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has given clear and personal assurances that the rights of SSHA tenants in particular are in no way diminished by the Bill. The Bill expands the opportunities available. The Opposition claim that there is no call for those opportunities. They said the same about the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, and they will be proved equally wrong now.

Mr. Home Robertson: I feel as though I have just been savaged by a pet lamb. The Minister's harangue would have been more convincing if he had been able to deliver it with a straight face, but I suspect that he found it no more convincing than the rest of the House did. He claimed to have listened to representations made in Committee and on the Floor of the House. He claimed to have listened to Shelter, to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, to the housing associations, to the Scottish Council for Single Homeless and all the rest, but there is precious little evidence that he understood or responded in any way to the positive representations made to him about housing in Scotland.
The Bill has been exposed as an irrelevant, dangerous and doctrinaire measure. In particular, it has highlighted the glaring deficiences in parliamentary scrutiny of Scottish legislation. Yesterday and today, the House has been voting through a measure which will have drastic effects on housing in Scotland, but without paying any attention to the arguments. Repeatedly, both yesterday and today, the Minister found himself in solitary splendour on the Conservative side with only a Whip from an English constituency to keep him company. Yet hundreds of English Conservatives poured into the

Lobbies to vote on a measure which has no bearing on their constituents but which will have a far-reaching effect in Scotland.
As for the Committee stage, it is worth putting it on record that the people of Scotland elected 50 Labour Members of Parliament, 12 Members representing the so-called minority parties and only 10 Members from the real minority — the Conservative party. The Standing Committee, however, consisted of 11 Conservatives, six Labour Members and just one alliance Member. It is interesting to consider how the Tories managed to get 11 Members on the Committee when they have only 10 Scottish Members, two of whom are members of the Cabinet. To get their work through, they had to add two English Members—[Interruption.]
I will not be lectured by the Minister of State, Scottish Office, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), about insults to the House. The hon. Gentleman represents a minority Administration in Scotland. He constantly treats the people of Scotland with abuse. He was not elected to do that, and I am not taking any nonsense from him. The Government managed to get their business through Committee only by adding two English Tories to its membership. That is just within Standing Orders, but it is an affront to the principles of democracy in Scotland.
The House and the Government should be warned about the strains that result from such provocative conduct by the minority Administration in the Scottish Office. The nation of Scotland does not have to put up with such abuse. Ministers are always quick to criticise the Opposition for any mention of civil disobedience in Scotland. The time is long overdue for Ministers to show some obedience to the electorate of Scotland — something that is lacking in this Bill and in other policies.
The Bill began life with a travesty of a consultation process. Ministers paid no heed to those who know and care about Scottish housing. Parliament has failed to carry out its duty to prevent the passage of bad legislation for Scotland. Part I creates a monstrous housing quango, Scottish Homes, whose board will be personally nominated by a Secretary of State who does not represent any more than a tiny rump of a minority in Scotland. That quango will have the full range of powers over housing in Scotland, but there will be no representation on its board from the tenants of Scotland. The powers of locally elected authorities are being savagely curtailed and SSHA tenants are being cynically manoeuvred into an uncertain future under Scottish Homes.
Part II provides for a new framework of so-called assured tenancies, which will be anything but assured. They are specifically designed to undermine tenants' rights and security and to force up rents to encourage the redevelopment of private landlordism in Scotland. The Government are running a terrible risk of encouraging the worst features of Rachmanism in Scotland. Clause 33 provides for damages for unlawful eviction, but it is clearly little more than a fig leaf. What is the point of protection against unlawful eviction when it will be all too easy to evict lawfully under schedule 5?
The Opposition, who are the majority in Scotland, want to put on record a clear warning to speculators that we will introduce a new framework of security and rent control as soon as possible, either in this Parliament or in a directly elected Scottish assembly. The Government are pinning their hopes on an upsurge in the provision of private


rented accommodation by a sector that has been in decline since the beginning of the century and that now holds only 6 per cent. of the rented housing stock in Scotland.
The Government are establishing a mechanism under Part III which will allow private speculators to acquire public sector housing stock at a cut price. That demonstrates the Government's lack of confidence that the private sector will invest in building or in improving rented accommodation. The private sector cannot and will not rise to the challenge, and the Minister knows it. Even if it did, tenants could not afford the increased rents.
If the Minister will not take that from me, perhaps he will take it from the chief executive of the Nationwide Anglia Building Society, Mr. Tim Melville-Ross. The Scotsman states that during a speech at the Institute of Housing conference in Aviemore recently, he called for
a significantly more generous housing benefit system to help people on modest incomes meet the higher rents likely under the Government's policy.
The article stated :
The head of one of Britain's biggest building societies gave warning yesterday that the Government's planned housing reform would fail unless more financial help were given to both tenants and the providers of private rented houses.
We keep hearing about Nationwide Anglia, but that is what its chief executive said about the Government's proposals. Of course he wants more concessions, but, to his credit, he is also calling for better support for tenants.
The Minister has rejected an appeal to reconsider the impact of the legislation on housing benefit. The Government are not interested in that. They may not want to recognise it, but there is a mounting housing crisis in Scotland. Those of us elected to serve Scottish constituencies come face to face with it every day of the week. More than 30,000 people in Scotland become homeless every year, and their number has increased relentlessly during recent years. More than 200,000 people are on waiting lists and more then one quarter of the population is living in overcrowded accommodation.
Scotland probably has about 500,000 damp houses, but it is difficult to establish the facts and figures because the Government refuse to conduct a house condition survey similar to those carried out in England and Wales. The position is deteriorating because of the Government's refusal to invest in housing in Scotland. The Bill offers no hope to Scots who face homelessness or who are stuck in bad or overcrowded accommodation. It is simply a threat of unaffordable rents and eviction as the Government sacrifice tenants' right in their reckless endeavour to encourage private landlordism in Scotland.
The Government are sacrificing everything — fair rents, security, local control, and even the precious right to buy that Ministers keep praising. That right would be lost to tenants who transferred to the assured tenancy system. The Government are unleashing born-again Rachmanism in Scotland because there is no provision for effective regulation of the private sector.
We welcome the spectacular new motivation during recent months among tenants' organisations in Scotland which have been provoked by the Government's proposals. The Labour party strongly supports the rebirth of the tenants' association movement, which is a welcome development. I will not take any chiding from the Minister or from anyone else about the Labour party's housing

policies. It has had positive achievements in housing in Scotland. We are happy to stand by the record of Labour-controlled authorities which, in all parts of Scotland, have made remarkable achievements, despite the interference and hostility of the Government.
Glasgow city district council, in particular, has made spectacular progress in difficult circumstances by developing and diversifying both public and private sector housing in partnership with housing associations, housing co-operatives and the private sector. It is a similar picture in many other areas. There is a stark contrast between the practical achievements of Labour-controlled authorities which want to provide for the needs of people in their localities and the negative approach of the minority Conservative Administration in the Scottish Office, who are interested only in encouraging their friends, the private property speculators. We stand for investment, for development and for tenants' rights. We reject the Bill.

Sir Hector Monro: I do not intend to follow the typical carping speech of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) because we all know that homes, houses, waiting lists, condensation and dampness are all run-of-the-mill subjects with which we have to deal as constituency Members of Parliament. Any Bill that will improve the position must be welcome, and I certainly welcome this one. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for piloting his first Bill through the House with such success.
I am glad that this year my hon. Friend has provided additional money for housing in Scotland. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made an important announcement yesterday on urban aid. I understand that the additional money for non-housing revenue account money and improvement grants will be welcomed by local authorities as it will enable them to improve their housing stock. It is a rapid move in the right direction.
I am glad that the Bill includes an extension of our most successful policy of council house sales, which has done so much to grant the wish of many Scots to own their homes. I am also glad that my hon. Friend has dealt with choice of tenure, choice of landlord and rented accommodation generally. I do not know why the Opposition are so opposed to rented accommodation, which is important in Scotland, and in which the private sector plays as important a part as the public sector. As an immense number of people want to be mobile and to move from one job to another, rented accommodation available at reasonably short notice is important, but we must have the right structure for that to happen.
It is disappointing that all Opposition parties keep shouting alarm and despondency and creating a great deal of comment in Scotland that the Bill might be disadvantageous to the average Scots household. Of course it is not. It is there to help. Its whole objective is to improve the quality of Scottish housing. That is why the most important part of the Bill is the setting up of Scottish Homes, bringing together the Scottish Special Housing Association and the individual housing associations that are doing so much throughout Scotland to improve the quality of homes, especially for the less fortunate and for handicapped people. That is one of the most important and dramatic developments in Scotland over the past ten


years or so—long may it continue. I hope that my hon. Friend will continue to make substantial sums of money available to the housing associations.
All in all, I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for Scotland on promoting the Bill, and I wish it well in another place.

Mr. Douglas: I shall be brief, but I want to address the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who has piloted the Bill through Committee and through our proceedings. I might be using the word "piloted" loosely, because a pilot usually achieves his objective by getting the ship into port safely, with the crew happy. The crew that I am speaking about are hon. Members — in this case, those representing Scottish constituencies. I would not describe it as a happy crew. Indeed, the Minister's own crew have deserted—

Mr. David Maclean: There are not many Opposition Members present.

Mr. Douglas: If the Whip would stop interrupting from a sedentary position, he would realise that it is not the Opposition's responsibility to carry the Bill through. He has that responsibility. Quite noticeable in our previous debate were some of the more knowledgeable English Members. I am referring, among others and in his absence, to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) who must have got material for three or four articles while listening to the Minister's erudite reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie). When my hon. Friend asked the Minister a question about clause 64, the reply from the Box was, in effect, "We do not really know the answer. After all this time, we are considering it." That is the level of debate and assistance that we have had from the Government.
The Under-Secretary of State, whom I have known for a considerable time, bears among his names a name that I bear also. Throughout history, the Douglases have fought for Scotland and Scotland's interests—

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Ruthlessly.

Mr. Douglas: Yes, ruthlessly, it is true. However, I do not think that the way in which the Under-Secretary of State is fighting at present is in Scotland's interest or that it is doing the Douglas name any good. He knows that I respect him highly, but he should consider his position. In a way, his piloting of this Bill is a triumph of our liking for him over his intellectual grasp of the housing issue.
The Under-Secretary of State mentioned a whole host of organisations that had been consulted about the Bill, not one of which supported the measure. The Scottish Special Housing Association initially thought that it was quite a useful measure, but on examining it in detail, it turned against it.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has left the Chamber and deserted the ship, but I pick up some of his strictures that we should all be concerned about the future of housing and that we should be flexible and not have a doctrinaire aproach. However, what concerns me about the thrust of the Bill, and about when it becomes an Act, is that it goes against the cohesion that we have kept in Scotland, in terms of a sense of community.
The Bill means that people will be able to move out of the local authority sector into Scottish Homes. It is

possible—indeed, I would say, probable—that there is a dual thrust out of the local authority sector because people will move out of the local authority sector into Scottish Homes, either through housing associations or in another way and, because of the discounts, people will buy themselves out of the local authority sector, which will be ghettoised. People who are concerned about a sense of community should be concerned about that. Only the poorer sections of the community and the worst type of housing will remain in the local authority sector. I advise the Minister that if he is concerned about communities, he should take that on board.
Moreover, as we saw in debating clause 64, the local authority will have burdens placed on it in relation to care of the homeless and vexatious aspects of rent control and rent legislation. People might be considered to be living in over-luxurious accommodation and be asked to move out. It is the local authority, not Scottish Homes, that will have the responsibility of looking after them.
What the Tories are doing to Scotland, not only in housing, but in education and in all aspects of Thatcherite policy, is destroying our sense of community. We did not vote for that in 1987. There is no majority in Scotland for that thrust and that approach. I warn my colleagues that we have suffered this for eight long and dreary months, but I doubt whether we can suffer for long an approach such as we have witnessed today — in the article in the Glasgow Herald and in the speeches that the Prime Minister has made in Scotland. I doubt whether the Douglases — people who have fought ruthlessly for Scotland—can stomach that for much longer.

Mr. Kirkwood: Although I believe that the Bill is a missed opportunity, I begin by agreeing with the Government at least in so far as their stated objectives were made clear to the Committee, to the House on Second Reading and in subsequent stages. First, it is obviously right, in the context of the condition of Scotland's housing at the moment, that increased home ownership should be given a degree of priority by the Government, and by local authorities and housing agencies.
Secondly, it is also true that increased diversification of forms of tenure is a perfectly proper and laudable objective. Finally, the geographical locations require urgent attention and priority, whether relating to legislation, resources or anything else that should be given to the peripheral housing schemes, especially in our bigger cities. I believe that all hon. Members would find it easy to agree with those things.
However, when we take the stated objectives and consider the content of the Bill as it has been produced by the Second Reading and Committee stages in the House, we are looking at the introduction of the new organisation, Scottish Homes. I believe that it would be possible for another Government with a different social and economic perspective, in office in Scotland, to make Scottish Homes a force for change for the better. However, because of the Government's track record on economic and social issues, I have substantial doubts that they will manage to achieve anything positive.
I believe that the proposals for Scottish Homes will have little impact on my constituency. I hope that I am wrong about that. The housing association movement has made a small but meaningful change for the better in rural


areas and small towns in south-east Scotland and the border areas. I hope that that will continue. But even the housing associations are anxious about the application of the new assured tenancy scheme to their future tenants.
The Minister said that he will continue to consider the matter. I implore him to get that consideration right. He must deal with the loss of security and succession rights. I warn him that, if he does not, he will lose the cooperation of housing associations. They will be in the same boat as local authorities which have, to all intents and purposes, lost any meaningful relationship with central Government. If the general powers and specific functions of Scottish Homes cannot be implemented with the agreement of local authorities and housing associations, the prospect of its succeeding are negligible. I hope that I am wrong, but I say that to the Minister with all the conviction that I can muster.
The Minister must also consider the balance between private and public sector investment. Of course, private sector investment should be brought in. I agree with the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) that to make public sector investment meaningful for investors, the Government will have to provide financial inducements over and above anything that they have considered to make substantial inroads into housing investment. That would cause me some anxiety. Although I do not mind allocating public funds to support housing provision in Scotland, it is wrong to give tax breaks and financial handouts to companies and individuals simply because they are prepared to consider moving into the private housing sector.
The balance of landlord to tenant in the new assured tenancy scheme is out of kilter. Time will tell whether I am wrong about that, but I believe that the Minister has gone too far in the wrong direction. I concede that to develop the philosophy that is contained in other parts of the Bill, there may have been arguments for considering how to free the private rented sector. I do not necessarily agree with it, but I concede that some adjustment may have been necessary. I think that the Minister has overdone that adjustment, and time will prove me correct.
What causes local authorities most anxiety is part III. The prohibition of opting into the public sector is unnecessary to achieve the Minister's aims. If his analysis is right and the public sector has been found wanting in the past—there have been legitimate criticisms of some local authorities, especially in the central industrial belt, in relation to repairs and maintenance — it must be unnecessary to proscribe people's ability to return to the public sector. It would have cost the Minister nothing to make the choice a genuine one, and he could more easily have defended himself against attacks on the issue from the Opposition. It was a bad tactical mistake, and I believe that the House will wish to reconsider the matter in the future.
I implore the Scottish Office, and the Minister's Department, to pay more attention to the processes of consultation. There is a widespread feeling, which I support entirely, that the Bill has been rushed through in an indefensible manner. I cannot understand what the hurry was. There are at least two, three or even four years remaining of this Parliament, and it would have served the interests of his Department better if the Minister had taken his time over consultation and introduced the Bill next

Session. That would have allowed the organisations to which the Minister paid tribute—I endorse that tribute—more time to discuss the issues. A much better Bill would have followed the Green Paper consultation and White Paper processes. If the Minister has any influence with his Department, I hope he will never again allow such scant consultation on Scottish legislation.
The parliamentary process of the Bill was disgraceful. The Committee stage got into a bit of a fankle for the first two weeks, and we could have made better progress then. But thereafter the Opposition were as constructive and positive as they could have been. The Minister said that about 190 amendments were tabled on Report, 88 of which were from the Government. Of course, there should be half a dozen or even a dozen amendments that derive directly from discussions in Committee, but the tabling of so many amendments on Report and the charade that we had last night sent me home deeply frustrated and despairing of what people outside this place—interest groups and the public—must have made of our proceedings.
The Minister must bear responsibility for that. If his Department comes to him and suggests that future legislation should be handled in that way, he should say, "No. I am not prepared to legislate in that fashion on important issues." If we do not protest vigorously against such procedures, the Government will have recourse to such tactics even more regularly. The Minister will take up my points later, but I believe that it does the House no service to legislate as we have with this Bill.
I hope that the Bill will succeed. I fear that it will not, but time will tell.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: The Bill will do almost nothing to solve Scotland's undoubted housing crisis. It will do almost nothing to help the thousands of homeless people, or the thousands of people threatened with homelessness, or the thousands of people living in what they consider to be inadequate accommodation, or the thousands of people on house waiting lists whose only hope of getting a home lies in the public sector through either the local council or the Scottish Special Housing Association. Not only will the Bill do almost nothing to help them; in many instances it will make matters considerably worse.
I shall confine most of my remarks to SSHA tenants, of which there are more than 1,000 in my constituency. The creation of Scottish Homes will be of no advantage to those tenants. Although the SSHA is far from perfect—I and many other Opposition Members have criticised it for being a quango and for being non-accountable, without any elected representation on the board—with the Bill we are coming out of the frying pan into the fire.
The SSHA will be replaced by a bigger bureaucracy. Scottish Homes will be the biggest landlord in Scotland. Sadly, the Minister refused to accept a succession of amendments in Committee — others were tabled for Report stage, but unfortunately were not selected—that would have introduced at least some elected representation on to the board of Scottish Homes. Instead, the membership of that board will be determined by the patronage power of the Secretary of State for Scotland. That is symptomatic of what is happening in Scotland, which is being governed by patronage rather than democracy.
We see that in the Health Service, where the Secretary of State's planted men have been put on the health boards, and those that disagree with him have been removed. I can imagine the type of pussy-footing people he will put on the board of Scottish Homes. They will be a crowd of yesmen.

Mr. Home Robertson: Ancram.

Mr. Canavan: Yes, indeed. He was quite rightly booted out of this place by his constituents. Sooner or later he will no doubt inherit a seat along the Corridor. In the meantime, as a result of the Secretary of State's abuse of patronage, Ancram is in danger of obtaining powerful positions such as membership of the board of Scottish Homes or other quangos and wreaking havoc until such time as true democracy is introduced to Scotland.
I agree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) about the quality of consultation—it was an absolute farce. I have yet to find one SSHA tenant in my constituency who is in favour of the proposals in the Bill. I wonder whether the Minister could give us the name and address of one SSHA tenant anywhere in Scotland who is in favour of the proposals.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: How can tenants say that they are in favour of the scheme when the options have not even been put before them?

Mr. Canavan: The proposals are in the Bill. If the Minister is saying that the Bill is simply a series of options, I am afraid he has misunderstood the concrete legislative proposals contained in it. It is not a Green Paper, a White Paper or a consultation document. A consultation document was published a year ago. There were a series of phoney consultations as a result of which a White Paper was produced prior to the publication of the Bill.
As far as I am aware, no SSHA tenant is in favour of the proposals. The Minister has failed to give us the name and address of one such tenant, but perhaps his officials can give him that information. There are more than 83,000 such tenants throughout Scotland. Surely one of them has written to St. Andrew's house to say that they support the proposals.

Mr. Douglas: As my hon. Friend has great mathematical skill, would he care to evaluate the probability of not one person in more than 80,000 being in favour of the proposals?

Mr. Canavan: It is certainly formidable. It is incumbent upon the Minister to tell us why not one SSHA tenant has written to support the proposals.
Despite what the Minister may have said about listening to people, there is still a great deal of concern, particularly among SSHA tenants, about the effects that the Bill will have on their security of tenure, on future rent increases and the threat of privatisation. Tenants are also concerned about the Bill's lack of commitment to additional resources. Such a commitment is essential if we are to get to grips with the current housing crisis that besets the Scottish people.
The Government are not prepared to listen to the views of SSHA tenants. The consultative procedure has been an absolute farce because no significant concessions have been made in the Bill. The Minister has referred to Government amendments, but, by his admission, most of them were due to errors made in the original drafting of the Bill. Those amendments are technical and do not represent concessions.
On occasions I went upstairs to see how the Bill was faring. I have described the consultation process outside this House as farcical, but what took place in Committee was an insult to the Scottish people. Despite my hon. Friends' efforts to put up an excellent case, based on well-researched material and articulated arguments, there did not appear to be any meaningful dialogue. The Minister got up and read from prepared Civil Service scripts. Sometimes it appeared to me that the contents of those scripts did not even address the arguments my hon. Friends had made in Committee.
In Committee there did not appear to be any dialogue or meeting of minds. I have noticed that before, especially during Scottish questions. At Question Time, we all know that the Minister has about 12 options to answer possible supplementaries to a question put down two weeks in advance. Sometimes the answer that the Minister reads out to those supplementaries bears no relation to the question asked because he has got the wrong page. I believe that, all too often, that also happened in Committee. The Minister picked up the wrong brief and as a result there was no debate. He simply read prepared statements, some of which bore no relation to my hon. Friends' arguments.
When one is faced with such a situation it is difficult to wring concessions out of a Minister. I was not surprised on Report to discover that hardly any concessions had been made. The Government appear to treat parliamentary debates and the normal customs and traditions of the House with absolute contempt.
On one occasion when I visited the Committee I noticed an hon. Member whom I had not seen before and have not seen since. Someone told me that he represented Wanstead and Woodford. I thought Patrick Jenkin represented that constituency, but someone told me that he has been translated to another place. No doubt he is brushing his teeth in the dark, or in the sunlight of the House of Lords. The presence of not just one, but two English Tory Members, on that Committee was breaking a longstanding tradition of the House.

Mr. Home Robertson: It is not a breach of the Standing Orders of the House.

Mr. Canavan: My hon. Friend is correct. We can argue about whether that should be so, but this was certainly a breach of custom and tradition. It is more than a quarter of a century since the last precedent for drafting in English hon. Members to a Scottish Standing Committee dealing with Scottish legislation.
The Government have scant regard for long-standing parliamentary traditions. They were reduced to a discredited rump of 10 hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies at the last general election. If they had an ounce of democratic decency left in them, they would have humbly accepted defeat and admitted that they had received no democratic mandate for housing policy, or anything else, from the people of Scotland. They would have abandoned the plans to introduce this sort of Scottish legislation, which the majority of Scots clearly do not want and which is being imposed on them by a Government whom they rejected at the last election. Instead of that, the Government have abandoned longstanding traditions and customs of the House.
We are often criticised by Conservative Members for having too little respect for this place, but the Government have shown less respect for the long-standing traditions of


the House than the Opposition in this case. If that were not so, the Bill would not have had the relatively smooth passage that it has had.
We shall never get good housing policy in Scotland until we have a Government who are democratically accountable to our people and who are charged with drafting and implementing Scottish housing policy. That means that continuing efforts must be made in and outside the House for the establishment of a Scottish Assembly, or a devolved Scottish parliament, with powers over housing policy and many other aspects of life that affect the people of Scotland.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The vast emptiness of the Conservative Benches sums up Conservative Members' attitude to Scottish housing and the way in which they treat our country and its housing needs. The Minister called this a most important Bill, but it is more important because of the potential damage it can cause to Scottish housing strategy and because of its failure to deal with Scottish housing needs.
The Bill disappoints. It fails to deliver anything substantial for the Scottish people or their housing. It does not live up to the worthy principles of the original White Paper and fails to meet Scotland's massive housing problems. It does nothing to combat dampness, overcrowding, growing waiting lists or any of the other all too obvious housing problems that afflict our nation.
Worse, homelessness will be exacerbated by many of the Bill's provisions. I regret that the Government have turned their back on the reasonable amendments that would have prevented further homelessness and helped local authorities to deal with the problem. The Government are making a serious and basic mistake in failing to prevent the financial haemorrhaging that will take place in council house sales at less than outstanding debt. That in turn will do great harm to house building and maintenance programmes.
I am disappointed at the Minister's failure to emulate his Welsh and English counterparts in various matters, including a clear commitment to allowing transfer back to public sector housing if that is chosen by a tenant. The Government also completely failed to accept any commitment to a housing conditions survey — an outstanding omission from the Bill.
The Government have wasted valuable legislative time that could and should have been put to better use. The Bill extends but fails to provide a real choice to tenants, and opposition to it has been well justified.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I do not want to prolong the debate, but I should respond to it.
To the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) I say that I did not have to say a word in Committee on the day when we both arrived there because he disrupted the proceedings that morning; so it is ironic that he should talk to us about the customs of the House. The doubts that he expressed about whether people would want to exercise increased choice in future were the same sort of doubts that were expressed during the passage of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 about whether there would be a take-up for the right to buy. Since that time,

there is evidence that 107,000 people have taken up that right. Similar take-up will follow here in the future, provided that better detailed options are put before the tenants concerned. I take the hon. Gentleman's point that tenants will have abundant common sense and will not choose better options unless they are clearly put before them.
I agree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) that many amendments were tabled on Report, because he and his hon. Friends contributed to the debate in such a way that some of the points that they raised were worthy of incorporation in an amended form, and it was only fair to respond to the good points that were made in Committee.
This is not the end of the Bill. The points that have been made will be further considered in another place and will return to the Chamber, when we shall have an opportunity to consider the Bill again in due course. The point that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire made about housing associations was important.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 192.

Division No. 244]
[8.17 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Aitken, Jonathan
Chapman, Sydney


Alexander, Richard
Chope, Christopher


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Allason, Rupert
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Amess, David
Colvin, Michael


Amos, Alan
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Arbuthnot, James
Cope, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cormack, Patrick


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Cran, James


Ashby, David
Critchley, Julian


Atkinson, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Curry, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Baldry, Tony
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Day, Stephen


Batiste, Spencer
Devlin, Tim


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bendall, Vivian
Dover, Den


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Dunn, Bob


Benyon, W.
Durant, Tony


Bevan, David Gilroy
Eggar, Tim


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fallon, Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Farr, Sir John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Favell, Tony


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bottomley, Peter
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Forman, Nigel


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Forth, Eric


Bowis, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Fox, Sir Marcus


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Franks, Cecil


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Freeman, Roger


Brazier, Julian
French, Douglas


Bright, Graham
Fry, Peter


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gale, Roger


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gill, Christopher


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Burns, Simon
Goodlad, Alastair


Burt, Alistair
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Butcher, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Butler, Chris
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grylls, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carttiss, Michael
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Cash, William
Harris, David






Haselhurst, Alan
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hayward, Robert
Portillo, Michael


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Powell, William (Corby)


Howard, Michael
Price, Sir David


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Raffan, Keith


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Redwood, John


Irvine, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Kilfedder, James
Roe, Mrs Marion


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Ryder, Richard


Knapman, Roger
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Scott, Nicholas


Knox, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lang, Ian
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Latham, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lawrence, Ivan
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shersby, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sims, Roger


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lightbown, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lilley, Peter
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Squire, Robin


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Steen, Anthony


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stern, Michael


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Madel, David
Sumberg, David


Malins, Humfrey
Summerson, Hugo


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maples, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Marland, Paul
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thornton, Malcolm


Mellor, David
Tracey, Richard


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tredinnick, David


Miller, Hal
Twinn, Dr Ian


Miscampbell, Norman
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Moate, Roger
Waller, Gary


Monro, Sir Hector
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Warren, Kenneth


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Watts, John


Moss, Malcolm
Wells, Bowen


Neale, Gerrard
Wheeler, John


Nelson, Anthony
Whitney, Ray


Neubert, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wilkinson, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Wilshire, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wolfson, Mark


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wood, Timothy


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Woodcock, Mike


Oppenheim, Phillip



Page, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Mr. David Maclean and


Pawsey, James
Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Barron, Kevin


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Battle, John


Allen, Graham
Beckett, Margaret


Alton, David
Beith, A. J.


Anderson, Donald
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bennett, A. F. (D'nf'n &amp; R'dish)


Armstrong, Hilary
Bermingham, Gerald


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Bidwell, Sydney


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Blair, Tony


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Boyes, Roland





Bradley, Keith
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Illsley, Eric


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Ingram, Adam


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Janner, Greville


Buchan, Norman
John, Brynmor


Buckley, George J.
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Callaghan, Jim
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Kirkwood, Archy


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Lamond, James


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Leadbitter, Ted


Canavan, Dennis
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lewis, Terry


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Litherland, Robert


Clay, Bob
Livingstone, Ken


Clelland, David
Livsey, Richard


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cohen, Harry
Loyden, Eddie


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McAllion, John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
McAvoy, Thomas


Corbett, Robin
McCartney, Ian


Cousins, Jim
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cox, Tom
McFall, John


Crowther, Stan
McKelvey, William


Cryer, Bob
McNamara, Kevin


Cummings, John
McTaggart, Bob


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McWilliam, John


Dalyell, Tam
Madden, Max


Darling, Alistair
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Maxton, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Meale, Alan


Dewar, Donald
Michael, Alun


Dixon, Don
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dobson, Frank
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Doran, Frank
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Douglas, Dick
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby}


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Morgan, Rhodri


Eadie, Alexander
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Eastham, Ken
Mullin, Chris


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Murphy, Paul


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Nellist, Dave


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
O'Neill, Martin


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Flannery, Martin
Parry, Robert


Flynn, Paul
Patchett, Terry


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Pendry, Tom


Foster, Derek
Pike, Peter L.


Foulkes, George
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Fraser, John
Prescott, John


Galbraith, Sam
Primarolo, Dawn


Galloway, George
Quin, Ms Joyce


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Randall, Stuart


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Richardson, Jo


George, Bruce
Robertson, George


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Robinson, Geoffrey


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Rogers, Allan


Golding, Mrs Llin
Rooker, Jeff


Gordon, Mildred
Ruddock, Joan


Gould, Bryan
Salmond, Alex


Graham, Thomas
Sedgemore, Brian


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Sheerman, Barry


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Grocott, Bruce
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hardy, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Heffer, Eric S.
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Henderson, Doug
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Hinchliffe, David
Snape, Peter


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Soley, Clive


Home Robertson, John
Spearing, Nigel


Hood, Jimmy
Steinberg, Gerry


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Stott, Roger


Howells, Geraint
Strang, Gavin


Hoyle, Doug
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Turner, Dennis


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Vaz, Keith


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Wall, Pat






Wallace, James
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Walley, Joan
Worthington, Tony


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Wray, Jimmy


Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)



Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Tellers for the Noes:


Wilson, Brian
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Winnick, David
Mr. Allen McKay.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Merchant Shipping Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Ordered,
That the Merchant Shipping Bill [Lords], as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, new Clauses, new Schedules, Amendments to Clauses 1 to 9, Schedule 1, Clauses 10 to 12, Schedule 2, Clauses 13 to 20, Schedule 3, Clauses 21 to 33, Schedule 4, Clauses 34 to 44, Schedule 5, Clauses 45 to 52, Schedules 6 and 7, Clause 53, Schedule 8. — [Mr. Channon.]

New clause 1

POWER TO PROHIBIT PROVISION OF COASTAL SHIPPING SERVICES WHICH ARE NOT BRITISH-BASED

`(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the provision of shipping services to which this section applies to be prohibited except where such services are provided from one or more permanent places of business maintained in the British Islands.
(2) This section applies to the following shipping services—

(a) the carriage of goods or passengers by sea—

(i) between ports in the United Kingdom, or
(ii) between a port in the United Kingdom and an offshore installation in United Kingdom waters, or
(iii) between offshore installations in United Kingdom waters;

(b) the carriage of passengers by sea on voyages or excursions beginning and ending at the same port in the United Kingdom, other than voyages or excursions which involve calling at any port or ports outside the British Islands (whether passengers disembark there or not); and
(c) shipping services (other than the carriage of goods or passengers by sea) which are—

(i) provided by means of ships operating out of ports in the United Kingdom (whether so provided within United Kingdom waters or not), or
(ii) provided within United Kingdom waters by means of ships operating out of ports outside the United Kingdom.

(3) An order under this section may make provision—

(a) with respect to the circumstances in which shipping services are to be regarded for the purposes of the order as being provided from one or more permanent places of business maintained in the British Islands;
(b) authorising the Secretary of State to issue licences sanctioning the provision of shipping services to which this section applies, notwithstanding that they are not provided as mentioned in paragraph (a) above, in cases where he is satisfied that there is no-one willing and able to provide the services in question as mentioned in that paragraph;
(c) requiring the payment, in connection with applications for such licences, of fees determined with the approval of the Treasury;
(d) exempting any prescribed class or description of shipping services from any prohibition imposed by virtue of subsection (1);
(e) authorising the Secretary of State, or a person appointed by him for the purpose, to serve notices requiring the production or furnishing of documents or information appearing to the Secretary of State or any such person to be necessary to enable him to determine such matters as may be prescribed;
(f) with respect to the manner of service of notices in pursuance of paragraph (e).

(4) An order under this section may—

(a) make different provision for different circumstances;
(b) make such transitional, incidental or supplementary provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.



(5) The provisions of an order under this section shall not discriminate between shipping services provided by different persons on the basis of the place of registration of the ships by means of which the services are provided.
(6) Section 728 of the 1894 Act (appointment of inspectors) shall have effect in relation to—

(a) any order under this section, or
(b) any licence is sued by virtue of subsection (3)(b) above,

as it has effect in relation to any such regulations or licence as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of that section; but section 27 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 (powers of inspectors) shall have effect in relation to any inspector appointed by virtue of this subsection with the omission of paragraphs (f) to (h) of subsection (1) of that section.
(7) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, but no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(8) In this section—
offshore installation" has the same meaning as in the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971;
prescribed" means prescribed by an order under this section;
shipping services" means—

(a) the carriage of goods or passengers by sea,
(b) services provided by offshore support vessels, and
(c) such other services provided by means of ships as the Secretary of State may specify in an order under this section;

United Kingdom waters" means waters within the seaward limits of the territorial sea of the United Kingdom and waters in any area designated under section 1(7) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964.'.—[Mr. Channon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 2—Enforcement of section (Powers to prohibit provision of coastal shipping services which are not British-based)—

'(1) Where—

(a) any ship is used in the course of the provision of any shipping services to which section (Powers to prohibit provision of coastal shipping services which are not British-based) applies, or
(b) anything is done on board a ship with a view to its being used to provide any such services,

and the provision of those services is prohibited by virtue of subsection (1) of that section and is not sanctioned by any licence issued by virtue of subsection (3)(b) of that section, then (subject to subsections (6) and (7)), the master and the owner of the ship shall each be guilty of an offence.

(2) Where the ship—

(a) is chartered by demise, or
(b) is managed, either wholly or in part, by a person other than the owner under the terms of a management agreement,

the reference in subsection (1) to the owner of the ship shall be construed as including a reference—

(i) to the charterer under the charter by demise, or
(ii) to any such manager as is referred to in paragraph (b) above, or
(iii) (if the ship is both chartered and managed as mentioned above) to both the charterer and any such manager.

(3) Any person who—

(a) in connection with an application for such a licence as is mentioned in subsection (3)(b) of section (Power to prohibit provision of coastal shipping services which are not British-based) or

(b) in purported compliance with the requirements of any notice served on him by virtue of subsection (3)(e) of that section,

knowingly or recklessly furnishes information which is false in a material particular shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) Any person who—

(a) without reasonable excuse (the proof of which lies on him) fails to comply with the requirements of arty such notice, or
(b) intentionally alters, suppresses, conceals or destroys a document which he has been required to produce in pursuance of subsection (3)(e) of that section,

shall be guilty of an offence.
(5) Any person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeeding £50,000;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine, or both.

(6) It shall be a defence in proceedings brought under subsection (1) against the master of a ship to prove—

(a) that the master did not know and had no reason to suspect that, in the circumstances of the case, the provision of the shipping services referred to in paragraph (1) or (as the case may be) paragraph (b) of that subsection was prohibited by virtue of subsection (1) of section (Power to prohibit provision of coastal shipping services which are not British-based), or
(b) that the master had reasonable grounds for believing that the provision of those services was sanctioned by a licence issued by virtue of subsection (3)(b) of that section.

(7) It shall be a defence in proceedings brought under subsection (1) against a person other than the master of a ship to prove that, under the terms of one or more charter-parties or management agreements entered into by the defendant, the right to determine the purpose for which the ship in question was being used at the time of the alleged offence was wholly vested in some other person or persons party thereto (whether or not any such other person or persons had entered into a further charter-party or management agreement providing for that right to be vested in some other person).
(8) Subsections (1), (3) and (4) apply to offences falling within those subsections wherever committed.
(9) Proceedings for an offence under this section may be taken, and the offence may for all incidental purposes be treated as having been committed, in any place in the United Kingdom.
(10) Proceedings for an offence under this section shall not be instituted—

(a) in England and Wales except by or with the consent of the Attorney General or the Secretary of State; or
(b) in Northern Ireland, except by or with the consent of the Attorney General for Northern Ireland or the Secretary of State.

(11) Any document required or authorised, by virtue of any statutory provision, to be served for the purpose of the institution of, or otherwise in connection with, proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) shall, where it is to be served on a person who was, at the time of the alleged offence—

(a) the owner of the ship in question, or
(b) such a charterer by demise or manager of that ship as is mentioned in subsection (2),

be treated as duly served on that person if—

(i) sent to him by post at his last-known address (whether of his residence or of a place where he carries on business), or
(ii) left for him at that address,

if the document is served on the master of the ship in question.
(12) In this section "management agreement" has the same meaning as in section 29.'.

Mr. Channon: The introduction of new clause 1 fulfils an obligation made in Committee. In the course of the consideration of this Bill, many hon. Members have referred to the great unfairness of the present situation on


cabotage. The Government's primary objective on cabotage remains liberalisation throughout the European Community and we are vigorously pursuing this aim with member states. I am well aware, however, that we face an uphill task against entrenched opposition. I have decided that it would be prudent to have powers to take alternative action in case the Community negotiations do not lead to early success.
The new clause introduces an anabling power for me to introduce a test of establishment for operators who wish to carry out cabotage in United Kingdom coastal waters. The test would apply equally to British and foreign-flagged vessels and would mean that, while non-British companies would still be allowed to compete in our cabotage trades, they would all have to be established in the British islands.
If the power is invoked, operators wishing to do United Kingdom cabotage will have to ensure that they are providing shipping services from a permanent place of business in the British islands, not merely from an agency or trading as a "brass plate company". However, the clause enables me to issue waivers where I am satisfied that there are no established companies willing and able to provide a specified service.
An order to implement the power would be subject to affirmative resolution. Before making such an order, I would consult interested parties. If the negotiations in the Community succeed, the power would then be revoked.
As I announced to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) today, in answer to a parliamentary question, in 1986, the last year for which information is available, British-flagged shipping had over 70 per cent. of the total United Kingdom cabotage market by estimated value. The total value of the United Kingdom cabotage market was estimated at approximately £440 million, so it is a substantial business and the largest in the Community. I repeat that we would far rather open up other coastal traffic to British ships than introduce restrictions of any kind on our own coasts, but, if the Community negotiations are protracted with no early prospects of success, we need to be able and ready to level the present unevenness of the playing field.
New clause 2 provides for the enforcement of new clause 1. Under this clause, the owner, master and charterer or other manager will be guilty of an offence where cabotage is provided in contravention of an order. Offenders will be liable to a fine of up to £50,000 on summary conviction and, on indictment, to imprisonment for up to two years and/or an unlimited fine. These are, of course, maximum penalties and it will be for the courts to decide the precise penalties in any particular case in the normal way.
However, I recognise that the master of the ship may have believed in good faith that the shipping company he was working for was established or had been given a waiver for the cargo in question. I have therefore provided that, if the master can prove either of these circumstances, it will be considered a defence for the purpose of proceedings. We have also introduced a defence for charterers who can prove that at the time of the offence the ship was in fact chartered wholly by another person.
These new clauses are long overdue and I invite the House to accept them.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that these new clauses are long overdue, and that reflects no great credit on the Department of Transport. I agree with the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) who put pressure on the Government to bring forward these new clauses. It is significant that debate took place both in the House of Lords and in Committee, yet it has taken until now to see what the Government had in mind. Although we would not intend to oppose the new clauses, we believe that they do not go far enough.
In a written answer to the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) today, the Secretary of State said that, according to the latest available figures, the total United Kingdom cabotage market amounts to some £440 million and that of that, some 28 per cent., or almost £100 million, is now dominated by non-British vessels, with all the consequences of loss of trade and loss of jobs for British merchant seamen.
I have raised in the House previously the question of the Swansea-Cork ferry, the so-called Celtic Pride, which, far from being a matter of pride for the Celts, either in this country or in Ireland, should be more correctly named the Pride of Poland because it is a Polish vessel manned by Polish seamen. Inevitably, when Polish seamen are being paid wage rates massively below those paid to British seamen, the Poles become economically dominant on the line. Under the new clause, there will be nothing to stop the Polish operators simply registering a company in the United Kingdom and continuing to operate in our coastal waters.
I hope that the Secretary of State will clarify the position on that matter, not because of its local significance, but because it is typical of the way in which we have allowed our coastal trade to be eroded and have allowed British jobs to be given up at the expense of those many British seamen who are no longer able to serve at sea as the opportunities no longer exist. The Secretary of State must take on board the fact that the Government have promised much on the issue of cabotage and have delivered little.
I wish to refer to the Department of Transport press release No. 472. I doubt whether the Secretary of State possesses a copy, given that he did not hold that office on 29 October 1985, when his predecessor said, in a reply to the ever-assiduous hon. Member for Eastleigh, that he was pleased to announce that his Department had reached a satisfactory agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany.
In the notes for editors which explain this wonderful agreement, the Secretary of State went on to explain:
Discussions have taken place between the shipping authorities of the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany about access by their shipping companies to each others' coastal cabotage and offshore trades.
The German shipping industry has already had access to British waters since 1849, so we are involved in a rather one-sided negotiation. Nevertheless, if progress had been made, we would have welcomed it.
The then Secretary of State went on to say:
Both sides recognise that the present position, in which German vessels enjoy full access to UK trades while UK vessels do not have reciprocal rights in the Federal Republic, was inequitable and should be rectified immediately.
The press release went on to state that, as both Governments anticipate that


the proposal will receive relatively early approval by the Council of Ministers, it seems inappropriate for the German Government to take legislative action to deal with those particular problems".
There are still barriers to British shipping in German waters. The press release issued by the then Secretary of State built up the hopes of the British industry, but it was bogus. Once again, the then Secretary of State promised much and delivered almost nothing.
Opposition Members are worried about this issue because we have seen the mass destruction of the British merchant fleet. It is interesting to note that the General Council of British Shipping has now come out in favour of some restrictions on the right of access of non-United Kingdom shippers into British waters. The council concludes that at least part of the decline of the United Kingdom merchant marine has been due to the Government's inability to take action on this issue over many years. However, it believes that the present access of foreign vessels to British waters has done serious damage to the British merchant fleet.
We are entitled to ask what the implications of the new clauses will be. We know, for example, that they will not give British vessels access to Greek, Italian, Spanish, French or Portuguese waters, from which British vessels are presently excluded. They will not stop fleets from those countries entering British waters. They will simply mean that they have to register under some kind of trading arrangement whereby a company is established in the United Kingdom. That is a minimal requirement on those operators.
As a result, some non-United Kingdom shippers will he dissuaded from entering British waters because they believe that it is not particularly convenient to establish a brass plate company. The Secretary of State said that brass plate companies will not be allowed, but I am not sure what mechanism will prevent the establishment of such companies. Individual shippers may be dissuaded by the new regime, and if that is the case, then, insofar as it refers to trade for United Kingdom shippers, we will welcome it. Nevertheless, it does not prevent access by non-British shippers into United Kingdom waters.
Over the past 12 months we have seen a further decline in the size of the British merchant fleet—an issue that has been raised many times by Labour Members. According to the Government's latest figures, in 1986 we lost 148 vessels off the British Isles part of the United Kingdom register, and in the first nine months of last year, we lost a further 30. The Government paraded that as some kind of triumph because the rate of the decline had diminished, but it is a disaster for those who work in the industry, and a disaster that could have been prevented.
We are prepared to go along with these new clauses, not because we believe that they go anything like far enough but because anything is better than nothing. If it gives the Secretary of State some ammunition when he goes in to arm-wrestle with his opposite numbers in the Mediterranean countries or the Federal German Republic, all well and good, but it is a minimal amount of power for him.
We have heard many times that agreement within the European Commission is imminent and that the British Government will leave no stone unturned until we have access to the costal waters of other nations, at least starting with the northern waters, and then in due course, they will solve the more intractable problem of the Mediterranean.

However, there has been little movement. Unless we get an international framework within the European community and that transnational level of agreement, the British merchant fleet will continue to decline and the new clauses, partially welcome as they are will not stop that continuing decline.
The Secretary of State may be congratulating himself on finally mustering enough courage to take some action, but it is now incumbent on him to take real action to protect British coastal traffic for the British fleet.

Sir David Price: As I have for many years been boring the House with the problems of cabotage, it would be extremely ungracious of me not to thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for tabling these two new clauses. As those who serve on the Committee will know, I had a different form of new clause, possibly a little more vigorous or a little more threatening to our opponents.
We would all agree with my right hon. Friend that the ideal is the traditional shipping policy of this country, which is open trade across the seven seas of the world, and that means open trade on our own coastline. This is where I must quarrel briefly with the Opposition, because they rather implied that there was a time when all our coastal trade was closed. It never was. It was always open. We want the same rights on other people's coastlines as we accord to them. I have rather more confidence than some Opposition Members that if we had that open access, we would get a far greater benefit for our seafarers than by closing access and picking up that 28 per cent. of our coastal trade which is in foreign bottoms. I sincerely believe that, and I think that Labour Members believe that too.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: To allay the hon. Member's worries, I make it clear that we share his view that proper access to the Mediterranean waters and to the waters of northern Europe would be in the interests of the British merchant fleet. However, we do not have that access and we shall not get it as a result of these new clauses.

Sir David Price: I do not despair of that. I am sure that any hon. Member who has read the treaty of Rome knows that it is clearly contrary both to the spirit and letter of that treaty for these other Community countries to deny British shipping the right to trade along their coastlines. That was recognised by Brussels when it introduced, in a sort of White Paper form although with a lot of green edges, its common shipping policy. The common rights of cabotage are clearly laid down in that policy. I ask that the other member countries adhere to the spirit and letter of that treaty. They are always asking us to do it, but let it be done on their side.
8.45 pm
In 1992 we are supposed to be having completely open trade between all member states, and we would be right to hold back on that until we are given the proper rights that are being denied to us by the other member states, with a few honourable exceptions. I hope that on every occasion our Ministers, not only my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is sturdy in defence of British industry, will be active in bringing this to the attention not only of the Commission but of the Council of Ministers. Our aim must be that all European coastlines must be open to all European ships. I will not be satisfied, and nor will the House, with some coasts being more open than others.

Mr. Robert Adley: I too would like to welcome these new clauses and to put on record the House's congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on grasping so many nettles in this Bill. He has established in these two new clauses an important principle of licensing. Recent events have shown a need for tighter controls, and not just stiffer penalties. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be giving an enthusiastic welcome to new clause 12 when we reach it.

Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) for his first remarks, and I will come to his second remarks when new clause 12 is debated, which I hope will be soon. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price). He is right to say that this situation existed for many years. It is a little hard of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) to criticise us and say that these measures are long overdue — I have used that phrase myself—because the situation has existed since at least the reign of George I. There have been one or two Labour Governments since then, so it is not entirely the fault of Conservative Governments that this has not been changed before now.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the opportunities before us, apart from the general principle that the coast should be open to all if there is to be a common market after 1992. The total cabotage market in the Community is worth about £1,450 million, so the sheer mathematical opportunities open to us would be greater than those offered by closing our coasts to Community vessels.
I am grateful for the persuasive arguments put by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh in Committee and over many years. They have contributed greatly in persuading the Government to take this new stand.
I am grateful for the hon. Member for Stretford's welcome for the new clauses. He raised a couple of points. The Swansea-Cork ferry is not cabotaged, as he will know. That is an international service between Ireland and Wales, so it would not be covered by any cabotage arrangements that might be made now or in the future. If he wants to give me details of the problems on that line I will examine them. Manning is another matter. The ship is under a United Kingdom flag and must abide by the requirements of the officer manning certification. If it became established, I can assure the House that brass plate presence will not be sufficient.
I will not give details about the regulations that I would be minded to put forward. If we have to introduce them, they will be subject to affirmative resolution, and the House will have an opportunity to debate them in detail. However, I shall not show my hand tonight as to what they might be, because I hope that I shall not have to introduce them, although I may.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: We will not insist that the Secretary of State shows his hand, because it might be inappropriate, but perhaps he might answer a far more important question. When will he be minded to begin to show his hand?

Mr. Channon: I intend to see what progress we can make during the period of the German presidency, then I shall review the matter again; we shall see. The hon. Gentleman is a little unfair to the German Government because in practice there are few restrictions, if any, on British ships doing cabotage in Germany. There is no

longer a problem, or if there is, it is very small. In most respects the German market is now free, in practice, to British ships.
I am grateful to the House for its reception of the new clauses. If we have to implement the provisions, we shall come forward with more details and the House will have an opportunity to examine them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New clause 2

ENFORCEMENT OF SECTION (POWER TO PROHIBIT PROVISION OF COASTAL SHIPPING SERVICES WHICH ARE NOT BRITISH-BASED)

`(1) Where—

(a) any ship is used in the course of the provision of any shipping services to which section (Power to prohibit provision of coastal shipping services which are not British-based) applies, or
(b) anything done on board a ship with a view to its being used to provide any such services,

and the provision of those services is prohibited by virtue of subsection (1) of that section and is not sanctioned by any licence issued by virtue of subsection (3)(b) of that section, then (subject to subsections (6) and (7), the master and the owner of the ship shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Where the ship—

(a) is chartered by demise, or
(b) is managed, either wholly or in part, by a person other than the owner under the terms of a management agreement.

the reference in subsection (1) to the owner of the ship shall be construed as including a reference—

(i) to the charterer under the charter by demise, or
(ii) to any such manager as is referred to in paragraph (b) above, or
(iii) (if the ship is both chartered and managed as mentioned above) to both the charterer and any such manager.

(3) Any person who—

(a) in connection with an application for such a licence as is mentioned in subsection (3)(b) of section (Power to prohibit provision of coastal shipping services which are not British-based) or
(b) in purported compliance with the requirements of any notice served on him by virtue of subsection (3)(e) of that section,

knowingly or recklessly furnishes information which is false in a material particular shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) Any person who—

(a) without reasonable excuse  he proof of which lies on him) fails to comply with the requirements of any such notice, or
(b) intentionally alters, suppresses, conceals or destroys a document which he has been required to produce in pursuance of subsection (3)(e) of that section,
shall be guilty of an offence.
(5) Any person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £50,000;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine, or both.

(6) It shall be a defence in proceedings brought under subsection (1) against the master of a ship to prove—

(a) that the master did not know and had no reason to suspect that, in the circumstances of the case, the provision of the shipping services referred to in paragraph (a) or (as the case may be) paragraph (b) of that subsection was prohibited by virtue of subsection (1) of section (Power to prohibit provision of coastal shipping services which are not British-based), or
(b) that the master had reasonable grounds for


believing that the provision of those services was sanctioned by a licence issued by virtue of subsection (3)(b) of that section.

(7) It shall be a defence in proceedings brought under subsection (1) against a person other than the master of a ship to prove that, under the terms of one or more charter-parties or management agreements entered into by the defendant, the right to determine the purpose for which the ship in question was being used at the time of the alleged offence was wholly vested in some other person or persons party thereto (whether or not any such other person or persons had entered into a further charter-party or management agreement providing for that right to be vested in some other person).
(8) Subsections (1), (3) and (4) apply to offences falling within those subsections wherever committed.
(9) Proceedings for an offence under this section may be taken, and the offence may for all incidental purposes be treated as having been committed, in any place in the United Kingdom.
(10) Proceedings for an offence under this section shall not be instituted—

(a) in England and Wales except by or with the consent of the Attorney General or the Secretary of State; or
(b) in Northern Ireland, except by or with the consent of the Attorney General for Northern Ireland or the Secretary of State.

(11) Any document required or authorised, by virtue of any statutory provision, to be served for the purpose of the institution of, or otherwise in connection with, proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) shall, where it is to be served on a person who was, at the time of the alleged offence—

(a) the owner of the ship in question, or
(b) such a charterer by demise or manager of that ship as is mentioned in subsection (2),

be treated as duly served on that person if—


(i) sent to him by post at his last-known address (whether of his residence or of a place where he carries on business), or
(ii) left for him at that address,

if the document is served on the master of the ship in question.
(12) In this section "management agreement" has the same meaning as in section 29.'.—[Mr. Channon.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 7

APPLICATION OF MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS TO SHIPS CHARTERED BY DEMISE TO THE CROWN

To move the following Clause: —
`(1) This section applies to a ship if for the time being—

(a) the ship is—

(i) registered in the United Kingdom, and
(ii) in the service of a government department ("the relevant department") by reason of a charter by demise to the Crown; and

(b) there is in force under section 80 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1906 (Government ships) an Order in Council providing for the registration of Government ships in the service of the relevant department.

(2) Where this section applies to any ship, the following statutory provisions, namely—

(a) the provisions of the Order in Council referred to in subsection (1)(b) (excluding those relating to registration under the Order), and
(b) the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts (as they apply by virtue of the Merchant Shipping Act 1906 and that Order in Council),

shall (subject to subsections (3) and (4)) have the same effect in relation to that ship as they have in relation to a Government ship in the service of the relevant department (whether referred to as such or as such a ship registered in pursuance of that Order in Council).

(3) Subject to subsection (4), the registration enactments shall have effect in relation to a ship to which this section applies in like manner as if it were not, for the purposes of the Merchant Shipping Acts, a ship belonging to Her Majesty.
(4) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide that any statutory provision falling within subsection (2) or (3) and specified in the Order—

(a) shall not have effect in accordance with that subsection in relation to a ship to which this section applies, or
(b) shall so have effect in relation to such a ship, but subject to such modifications as are specified in the Order.

(5) In the application of any provision of the Merchant Shipping Act, (other than a provision of the registration enactments) in relation to a ship to which this section applies, any reference to the owner of the ship shall be construed as a reference to the relevant department.
(6) An Order in Council under this section—

(a) may make such transitional, incidental or supplementary provision as appears to Her Majesty to be necessary or expedient: and
(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(7) In this section—
government department" includes a Northern Ireland department;
Government ship" means a Government ship within the meaning of section 80 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1906;
the registration enactment" means—

(a) the provisions of Part I of the 1984 Act down to and including section 67 of that Act;
(b) section 5 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1983; and
(c) Parts I and II of this Act.'. — [Mr. David Mitchell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the new clause is to clarify the position of British-registered ships chartered by demise to the Crown and in the service of Government Departments.
The point of difficulty arises in connection with demise-chartered ships. For those not familiar with the phrase, it refers to the lease of the whole ship. The problem arises because there is some uncertainty concerning the application of the Merchant Shipping Acts. It is arguable that they are in the position of fully registered British ships or that, for the purposes of the Merchant Shipping Acts, they are in the position of unregistered
ships belonging to Her Majesty
and therefore may be outside the scope of the Merchant Shipping Acts. It is clearly of benefit to remove any such doubts, and the new clause will clarify the legal position of all demise-chartered ships in the service of any Government Department.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New clause 8

DUTY OF OWNER OF REGISTERED SHIP TO SECURE TERMINATION OF ANY OVERSEAS REGISTRATION

`(1) Where a ship becomes registered at a time when it is already registered under the law of any country outside the United Kingdom, the owner of the ship shall take all reasonable steps to secure the termination of the ship's registration under the law of that country.
(2) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) shall he guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the third level on the standard scale.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a ship which becomes registered in pursuance of section 53B of the 1894 Act (transfer of registration under that Act from overseas territory).'.—[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take Government amendments Nos. 2, 43, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 58.

Mr. Mitchell: The new clause and amendments are principally concerned with making it clearer in United Kingdom law that a ship or fishing vessel should not be registered both in the United Kingdom and in a foreign country.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read the Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9

APPLICATION TO UNREGISTERED SHIPS

'(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations specifying any description of unregistered ships and directing that such of the provisions of sections 29, 30 and 32 as may be specified in the regulations—

(a) shall extend to unregistered ships of that description, or
(b) shall so extend in such circumstances as may be so specified.

with such modifications (if any) as may be so specified.
(2) Subsection (1) shall not be construed as prejudicing the application to unregistered ships of section 29(1)(a) or section 32(2)(a)(iii).
(3) In this section "unregistered ship" means a ship which is not registered in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.'.—[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.

Mr. Mitchell: The purpose of the amendments is to tidy up the application of clauses 29 to 32 to unregistered ships, particularly the application to ships that might be termed "unregistered United Kingdom ships" when outside United Kingdom ports and territorial waters.
I should make it clear that the vast majority of unregistered ships are in fact pleasure craft. Although many pleasure craft are registered, because it is a common requirement imposed by banks in order to mortgage a ship, the smaller ones are often not. A more famous—or infamous—category of unregistered ships are pirate radio ships and there are occasional irregularities involving ships that have been removed from one register and not placed on another.
The House will note that the amendments make no change to the existing application of clauses 29 to 32 to any ship, whether registered or not, when in United Kingdom ports or territorial waters. Their primary aim is to enable all four clauses to be applied to unregistered ships with a United Kingdom connection when outside United Kingdom waters, in the same way as United Kingdom registered ships are so covered. In fact, there are provisions in clause 30(2)(b) and clause 32(2)(a)(ii) which attempt to do that, but they are unsatisfactory because, for example, clause 30(2)(b) would catch ships owned entirely by citizens of a dependent territory that had no United Kingdom connection at all. Those two provisions are

therefore deleted and an order-making power substituted by the new clause. We anticipate laying orders in that respect later in the year.

New clause 3

APPLICATION OF CIVIL JURISDICTION AND JUDGEMENTS ACT 1982

'The provisions of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgements Act 1982 shall not apply to vessels registered pursuant to section 12 of this Act where such application would mean that a vessel would pass from the jurisdiction of a Scottish Court to that of a Welsh court.'.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause arises from concern about the impact of the Bill on jurisdiction of the Scottish courts over Scottish fishing vessels. We are worried about the establishment of the centralised register in Cardiff as it relates to the provisions of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgements Act 1982, schedule 8, paragraph 4 of which provides that for proceedings
which have as their object the validity of entries in public registers
the appropriate court in which to pursue the action is that for the place where the register is kept. Obviously that raises grave doubts about the jurisdiction of Scottish courts over Scottish fishing vessels, given the establishment of the centralised register in Cardiff.
I hope that the Minister will allay the fears that have been expressed over three specific matters. First, can there be a challenge to the validity of entries in the register and would that take place in the Scottish or in the Welsh courts? Secondly, will a challenge to the refusal of an entry on the register — which could take place by judicial review—still be able to take place in Scottish courts? The third question is whether Scottish courts will retain jurisdiction over the affairs of Scottish fishing vessels.
9 pm
These are not minor matters of legal nicety but concern about an individual's right of redress. I recently came across somebody—a constituent of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie)—who was pursuing a considerable case against British Telecom because his Cellnet machine was not working properly. He was at a fairly advanced stage of preparing his case when BT told him imperiously that it would not answer to his case in any Scottish court because it is registered in London.

Mrs. Ray Michie: There is a great danger that, if there is a dispute involving Scottish fishing vessels, the relevant parties might, unbelievably, have to travel to Wales to fight the case. Clause 20 of BT's contract provides that any dispute must be taken in an English court. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is utterly unacceptable to the people of Scotland.

Mr. Salmond: That is a helpful intervention and it emphasises the general support for the proposition that the Bill should not inadvertently remove legal affairs involving Scottish fishing vessels from the jurisdiction of Scottish courts.
I am sure that that was not the Government's intention and that if there is any threat to the jurisdiction of Scottish courts, it is an accident. The Government are, however, responsible for persuading the House that they intend to


tackle the matter. They can either accept new clause 3, which would remove from the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgements Act 1982 the registration of Scottish fishing vessels and prevent jurisdiction from being moved to Welsh courts, or the matter could be tackled by regulation. The Government could thus provide that the port of registration is where the register is kept, rather than there being a central register in Cardiff. Whichever route the Government choose, they have a responsibility to allay the anxieties which arise out of the transfer of jurisdiction affecting Scottish fishing vessels from Scottish to Welsh courts.

Mr. Calum MacDonald: I also am worried about the possible effect of the Bill on Scottish fishing vessels. I wrote to the Minister, who reassured me that disputes involving registration would be decided in a Scottish court and that matters such as those which would arise out of a collision could also be dealt with in a Scottish court. He said, however, that disputes about the validity of registration, which I took to mean the particulars of a vessel, would still he decided in a Welsh court.
I should like the Minister to confirm that my impression is correct. He said that disputes about the validity of a register entry are rare. Will he take on board the worries that have been expressed by Opposition Members and fishermen? Fishermen are worried that in, for example, a dispute about the particulars of an entry, they would have to go down to Wales. If such disputes became fairly common, perhaps the Minister would he willing to reconsider what the Bill proposes.

Mr. David Mitchell: As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has explained, under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, it is a requirement, in proceedings about the validity of entries in a public register, for the courts where the register is held to have exclusive jurisdiction. That means that when the central register of fishing vessels is established in Cardiff, it will be for the courts in England and Wales to exercise jurisdiction in any such proceedings related to that register.
I do not believe that it would be sensible to depart from established practice in these matters, but I can reassure the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald), who made inquiries a few weeks ago, that actions that challenge the validity of entries in the register are extremely rare, and that jurisdiction of the Scottish courts over other matters concerning fishing vessels will not be affected by the establishment of the register for fishing in Cardiff.
The more important and more likely challenge concerning registration would be a challenge to a decision by the Secretary of State to refuse registration, or to deregister a vessel. Such a challenge would be by way of a request for judicial review and could be brought in courts anywhere in the United Kingdom. In such cases, it would therefore be open to a fishing vessel owner to sue in Scotland if he so wished. In a whole host of other cases involving fishing boats, such as collision actions and wage disputes, the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts is not affected.

Mr. Robert Hughes: What would be the position if mortgages were registered against a ship in the Welsh courts and there was a dispute about that? Would that have to be done in the Welsh courts?

Mr. Mitchell: If a dispute arises over the question of mortgages, that is for the Scottish courts, because that is where the issue arises. If it is a dispute about the register, then it would be a matter for the English or Welsh courts.

Mr. Salmond: Is it possible for the Minister of State to qualify how rare is rare? How rare are challenges of the validity of entries? It would help if the House were to know how minor is the matter we are discussing.

Mr. Mitchell: How rare is rare is a question that often exercises one's mind, but not in the precise circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. Such challenges are so rare that I am not aware of a case.

Mr. Salmond: I thank the Minister for going into such detail and for attempting to quantify how rare is rare. The House is broadly assured by what the Minister has said. I hope that he will keep the matter under review to make sure that no inconvenience to Scottish fishermen arises out of the legislation.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

TRADE DISPUTES INVOLVING SEAMEN

`1.—That section 42 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 be amended to include the following at the end :—
3. — That notwithstanding anything in any agreement, seamen in any ship registered in the United Kingdom and securely moored in a safe berth, shall have the right to combine with other seamen in contemplation of furtherance of a trade dispute and lo refuse to go to sea until such time as a ballot has been held for the furtherance of that dispute. Furthermore that any action taken under this section shall not render a seaman liable for breach of contract, and that:—

(a) a seamen shall be entitled to disobey any order that would require him to go to sea.
(b) it shall be an offence for any person to issue an order to go to sea after the giving of such a notice, and prior to either, the holding of a ballot, or the withdrawal of the notice.".'. —[Mr. Robert Hughes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause he read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take new clause 6—Trade disputes involving seamen—
'1. That the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
2. In section 42 shall be inserted a new subsection as follows:—
(3) Notwithstanding anything in any agreement, a seaman employed in a ship registered in the United Kingdom may terminate his employment in that ship by leaving the ship in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute after giving the master not less than forty-eight hours notice of his intention to do so, and shall not be compelled (unless the notice is withdrawn) to go to sea in the forty-eight hours following the giving of such a notice; but such a notice shall have no effect unless at the time it is given the ship is securely moored in a safe berth.
3. In section 30 for the words from the beginning of paragraph (c) to the end there shall be substituted—
(c) combines with other seamen employed in that ship—



(i) to disobey lawful commands which are required to be obeyed at a time when the ship is at sea;
(ii) to neglect any duty which is required to be discharged at such a time; or
(iii) to impede, at such a time, the progress of a voyage or the navigation of the ship,

But not when the ship is securely moored, under which circumstances any such actions that may be taken in furtherance of a trade dispute, will not render a seaman liable to action for breach of contract,
He shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100.
For the purposes of this section a ship shall be treated as being at sea at any time when it is not securely moored in a safe berth.
4. That section 19(4) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1974, be deleted and replaced by subsection (3) above.'.

Mr. Hughes: New clause 4 deals with trade disputes involving seamen. It might be helpful to the House if I set out some of the background as to why we believe new clause 4 is necessary.
Those with long memories will recall that in 1966 there was a series of industrial disputes involving seamen. As a result, the Pearson committee was set up. Arising out of the report of the Pearson committee, the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 included section 42(2) which conceded for the first time a legal right for seafarers to strike. Admittedly, that concession was in a convoluted form. Section 42(2) effectively allows seafarers to terminate their contracts of employment on a ship by giving the master 48 hours notice. During those 48 hours, provided that the notice was given in furtherance of an industrial dispute, seamen could not be compelled to go to sea.
It is interesting that the General Council of British Shipping argued that it was perfectly possible for seamen to be compelled to take ferries to sea within those 48 hours if the journey could be completed within 48 hours. Some limitation was placed on the 48 hours' notice. First, the ship had to be securely moored in a safe berth, and no one would object to that. Secondly, the vessel had to be securely moored in a safe berth in the United Kingdom. The provision applied only to the United Kingdom.
Ther Merchant Shipping Act 1974, in section 19, extended the right to strike in an even more convoluted way. Section 19 exempts a seaman from disciplinary action for disregarding a master's lawful command if he is combining with other seamen for an industrial dispute. Again, that right is limited to the secure berth of the ship. Section 19 extends the right to strike to any place in the world, unlike section 42(2) of the 1970 Act which is limited to the United Kingdom.
That is how matters stood until, regrettably, in another place, Lord Brabazon of Tara accepted a Back-Bench amendment to delete section 42(2) of the 1970 Act. Section 19 of the 1974 Act remains in being.
There were a number of debates in the other place. We also had a debate in Committee. I emphasise that no firm evidence was produced either in the other place or in Committee to justify the removal of section 42(2) from the 1970 Act. There was anecdotal evidence from Lord Mottistone and the Earl of Inchcape. They said that the system was being abused. I am afraid that the gullible Lord Brabazon of Tara accepted his colleagues' tales and was persuaded by his noble Friends to accept the amendment.
We objected to that on Second Reading. We believe that the amendment was smuggled in at the last moment. We warned the Government that we would raise the matter in Committee and we pressed them very strongly on it. I expected that in Committee the Government would be extremely well briefed and that they would provide many examples of the Act having been used. Even if the civil servants were unable to produce evidence, we expected that the Minister's friends in the shipping industry would be able to provide reasons for this change in the law.
We pressed the Minister extremely hard, because he resisted the restoration of the original text. Finally, we were told why the change had been made. He said:
The hon. Gentleman asks me for examples and I shall give him some. There were such abuses by the National Union of Seamen at Dover during the 1981 pay dispute and by crews of P &amp; O ships at Portsmouth in 1984 when they were taken over by Townsend Thoresen. I trust that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to defend such actions."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 1 March 1988; c. 204–5.]
That was all the evidence that he could produce after having had all the time in the world to examine the matter. His explanation was pretty limp, even by his standards.
It would be foolish of me to say that section 42(2) has not been used recently. I know that it has been used. It was used in Aberdeen, for example, to prevent a P and O vessel, the St. Sunniva, from going to sea. It has never been part of the Opposition's case that section 42 has not been used. It does not matter how much the Government claim that people have the right to strike and take industrial action if, when they exercise that right, they describe it as an abuse.
The Government are guilty of equating the words "use" and "abuse" with industrial relations. They do not really believe in the rights of free trade unions—at least, not in the United Kingdom. Perhaps they believe in free trade unions if they are established in Poland. Perhaps the Prime Minister supports Solidarity in Poland. If she does, it is only rhetorical support from a very safe distance. If it is close to home, we know how matters stand.
Industrial relations have moved on a great deal since 1970, but they have not moved on in any good sense for seamen. Matters have come to a pretty pass. A trade union that wishes to hold a ballot on industrial action is taken to court to decide whether it is legal to hold that ballot. Furthermore, if a trade union holds a ballot, it can be taken to court and prevented from counting the votes. I do not know where we are going; it is hammering the trade unions very hard. Shipowners are allowed to make provocative statements that I would class as secondary action, but the National Union of Seamen is not allowed to take industrial action if it is regarded as secondary action.
I recognise that people's minds are concentrated on the fact that there is a dispute at Dover and that their travel plans will be disrupted. Inevitably, given the nature of society, the National Union of Seamen is under severe attack for its part in the dispute.
9.15 pm
I regret very much the disruption of the Easter holiday traffic. [HON. MEMBERS: "Crocodile tears."] There are no crocodile tears. I genuinely believe that it is a great pity that the dispute is taking place. The seamen also regret it. They would far rather be at sea at a time of year when they are expecting good returns for their work.
I do not believe—this is reflected in the remarks of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) — that the seamen's case has been given a fair hearing. It is all too easy to portray them as strikers trying to hold back the tide — trying to hold up the progress of the ferry service, and to neglect the seriousness of the position. That is clearly not the case. It must be made clear that the National Union of Seamen accepts that the Channel tunnel will lead to a rationalisation of cross-Channel ferry services.
The National Union of Seamen has agreed that P and O's proposals on manning—which are what the dispute is about — can be implemented over three years. It is prepared to do that, first, to minimise the effects on crews—that, after all, is why it is in business—and, secondly, to allow the effects on safety of the new manning systems to be monitored. That is an extremely responsible attitude for a trade union to take.
The union accepts that the company must show a healthy profit and face the challenges ahead. In those circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable to ask, "Why the current impasse in the industrial dispute?" Again, it is necessary to set the scene.
In October 1987, Jeffrey Sterling met the Dover P and 0 port committee — the shop stewards — and, after discussion, gave them an undertaking that any redundancies and changes in terms and conditions of employment would be phased in with the opening of the Channel tunnel, which is forecast for 1992–93.
Suddenly, on 4 December 1987, P and O reneged on that promise. It notified the National Union of Seamen that the existing agreement would end on 4 March. That would mean 400 redundancies, 10 days' loss of annual leave with no compensatory payments, the loss of various payments for additional hours worked—which would cost the seamen between £8·25 and £40 a week—and an increase in shipboard working from 12 to 16 hours a day. Currently, the shift pattern is 24 hours on and 24 hours off. It is now being asked that that should change to 72 hours on and 72 hours off, over a longer period.
In debates such as this, we should be fair. Let me put the case for P and O. P and O argues that the changes are necessary to meet the challenge of the Channel tunnel—which is still a long way off, but we will leave that aside. P and O says that it is also necessary to prepare for loss of earnings to the company because of the loss of the duty-free concessions due to come in in 1992. We are still four years away from that.
What interests me particularly is that the company says that it needs the changes because it must prepare for the effects of the introduction of value added tax on passenger transport. Apparently, the company knows something that the Government will not admit. We have been pressing the Minister of State for nearly a year to give an absolute guarantee that he will veto the imposition of VAT on passenger fares, whether on bus services, railways, ferries or aircraft, but he sits quiet and will not concede the point. He pushes the matter over to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or to the Chancellor. Any excuse will do. He says that it is nothing to do with him.

Mr. David Mitchell: indicated assent.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman nods. [HON. MEMBERS: "He has given in."] But P and O knows, and it is using the imposition of VAT as part of its case.
P and O also states that it wishes to increase its return on investment from 10 to 12 per cent. at present to 25 to 27 per cent. It wants to double its profit margin. So far, it has done extremely well. It has declared an additional £100 million profit this year. We cannot bargain on these issues across the Floor of the House and I do not seek to usurp the negotiating rights of the National Union of Seamen, but the information that we have published shows clearly that the seamen have a very fair and reasonable case. They are right to be angry that their only weapon of self-defence—industrial action—has been whittled away and eroded.
I hope that the Government will accept the principle of the new clauses. The Minister or State is a reasonable man and will have studied the arguments carefully since the Committee stage. If he has done that, I am sure that he will see the merit of our case.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: May we take it that the new clauses embrace fishermen employed by trawler companies? As a Member from Aberdeen, my hon. Friend will know as well as I that there are rarely trade disputes involving what are colloquially known as share fishermen, but that is not the case in relation to those employed by trawler companies. As my hon. Friend knows, those companies have made something of a comeback in the British fishing industry. It is important, therefore, to be sure that the term "seamen" includes fishermen employed by trawler companies.

Mr. Hughes: So far as I am aware, people employed by trawler companies in Aberdeen are covered in all aspects by the Merchant Shipping Act, so there is no doubt at all that the new clause would apply to them. Over the years, we have seen the necessity of protecting the rights of fishermen and seamen of all kinds. We intend to enhance their right to strike and to take industrial action in their defence.
If there are technical drafting deficiencies — that is always the first port of call of a Minister who wishes to resist an amendment or a new clause — all the new clauses and amendments, of which volumes have been tabled by the Government, will have to be ratified in another place, so any drafting deficiencies could be put right at that stage.
I wish to make the principles in the new clauses clear. We seek to restore to the Bill section 42 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970. We also seek to go further than that. In our view, that section is so important that it should apply to ports outside the United Kingdom. We do not see why that right to take industrial action should be confined to United Kingdom ports. We want to see that right extended, although I emphasise that we retain the safeguard that the ship must be securely moored in a safe berth.
I should also make it clear that when action is taken in furtherance of an industrial dispute, neither the seamen nor the union should be made liable for damages in terms of breach of contract so long as a ballot is under way or has been taken. The right of employers to free and easy access to the courts to take action against unions for damages has seriously damaged the trade union movement and it does not help industrial relations. If new clauses 4 and 6 were accepted, that would go a long way towards


redressing the balance between employers and employees, which has been tilted far too much to the employers' advantage.
Seamen, especially those working on ferries, are under intense pressure. I accept that to some extent the Channel tunnel will pose problems for the ferries, although I do not believe that the damage will be as great as many people fear. I object to the way in which the employers are maximising the fears of the effects of the tunnel to seek terms advantageous for themselves and disadvantageous for their employees.
The current problem with industrial relations on ferries is not helped by the astonishingly intemperate remarks by Mr. Sherwood of Sealink, who said that if P and O succeeded in imposing conditions on its employees, Sealink intended to do the same.

Mr. Roger Stott: Secondary action.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, it is secondary action. If Sealink seamen take action to prevent their employer forcing conditions on them, the employer's response will be, "I can ride on the back of P and O's success." They are not allowed to help the P and O seamen and, as a consequence, help themselves.

Mr. Adley: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's comments about Mr. Sherwood, but we should not necessarily believe that he is typical. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be hard to find a worse employer in the whole of British industry?

Mr. Hughes: That is a very fair comment. On transport, if not on other matters, the hon. Gentleman can generally be relied upon to bring some sense to our discussions. He has a keen interest in the subject. Whether or not Mr. Sherwood is typical, he is nevertheless issuing threats to his employees. Surely they have the right to defend themselves. They cannot wait until P and O has succeeded in imposing conditions on its employees, because by then the P and O dispute will have ended and its workers will be unable to strike to help the Sealink workers.
It is quite wrong to believe that there are separate disputes in the ferry business, with primary and secondary action. It is all one series of actions. It is intolerable that seamen, especially those on the ferries, should be put under such intense pressure. We must give them the best possible defence. They should have the best possible law to assist them to protect their reasonable and valid interests in their employment, their prospects, their wages and their conditions. New clauses 4 and 6 would achieve that, and I ask the House to accept them.

Sir David Price: I should like to respond briefly to the comments of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). I think that he will agree that it was not clear from the way in which he moved the new clause whether he was arguing in general terms about improving industrial relations and about the machinery for consultation in the industry, or whether he is arguing the case of the National Union of Seamen in the P and O dispute. I found his arguments fairly mixed up.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am grateful to have the opportunity to make the record clear. First, I believe that, in general terms, our new clauses are right. Secondly, it is

perfectly legitimate in this debate to put the case of the seamen which, regrettably, has not been properly presented by the public press.

Sir David Price: On that latter point, I do not think that hon. Members do well in trying to settle industrial disputes across the Floor of the House on the Report stage of a Bill. It has been my own industrial experience that we are not the best forum for doing that. Therefore, I shall say no more about that dispute, other than very much to regret it.
In the present state of the British merchant shipping industry, we should be talking about how we meet competition from other countries and about the ways in which we could work closely together, rather than about the way in which we enhance disputes. I should like us to spend our time examining how we can get rid of disputes and achieve instead agreement and co-operation.
9.30 pm
Of course the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North is perfectly right about the problem about holding ballots when ships are at sea. That is remarkably difficult. To that extent it is perfectly proper to discuss the way in which ballots for seamen are to be arranged, if we are to have them. I do not believe that either of the new clauses makes that proposition any easier. Indeed, it seems that, if put into the Bill in the form in which they appear on the Order Paper, both new clauses would give seafarers rights which no other trade unionists have in any other industry in the country. We should be trying to put seafarers in the same position as the remainder of British industry. That goes for both sides—the employers and the employees.
I do not want to go through a critique of the new clauses, because I know that the House wants to proceed with the Bill. However, I do not want it to go unrecorded that one could make quite a long critique of them. I hope that the spirit with which we have been handling the Bill—one of seeking co-operation between all parties—will continue. I accept entirely that not every shipowner and not everyone in management is what I would regard as the ideal spokesman that I would invite if I were running a conference on good co-operation in industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) has raised that point. It is important that this House tells all parties in the British shipping industry that some of us have been shouting the odds for the British Merchant Navy for a long time in the House.
I hope that the sufficient response will be that everyone in the industry gets together and works together; otherwise, the competition will continue to take trade away from us. Much of that competition comes not from Europe, but from the far east. Perhaps I will be accused of racialism, but personally I do not want to see all this country's trade being run from the far east. I am sure that that is the general mood of the House. I hope that we can achieve a spirit of co-operation, not of conflict.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I have listened to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), whom I have heard before on matters relating to industry and have always found interesting. However, I think that he would agree that we are talking about a different industry from the day-to-day work experience of most people. I worked in the engineering industry and if I had to put up with bad conditions there, it was for only eight hours of the day. However, seamen are sometimes at sea


for six to seven months, and the ship is home to them for 24 hours a day, so fair's fair. Yes, in the new clauses we are asking for something different from the provisions relating to other industries, but we are dealing with a different industry.
Captains can be tyrants and hopeless individuals who would not last 10 minutes in other industries. Seamen often have to put up with indignities and with the captain having many powers over them.
I am the son of a seaman. My father was a member of the National Union of Seamen all his working life. He had to go to sea because of the great depression; it was the only work that he could find. So bad were the conditions that he was given a voucher in the port of Glasgow to buy his bedding to take to sea. As a stoker, he had a filthy job and at the end of his watch he received one bucket of hot water with which to wash himself. Men worked in those conditions, and the National Union of Seamen had to fight against them.
When my father was taken ill abroad, he was put ashore in places such as Canada, Egypt and countries in the far east, and the company did not even have the decency to let my mother know that her seaman's allotment would not be paid into the post office for a while. The union looked after the family and it looked after my father, who was regarded as a distressed British seaman.
I recall my mother telling me that on his first trip my father was put ashore in Canada because he had a poisoned hand. He was put ashore because the captain received a bonus for having a healthy crew. To its credit, the union made sure that he was looked after in Canada for six months, and I put it on record that the Canadian people looked after a young seaman much better than the British Government or the shipping company did.
My father's ships were torpedoed three times, and many of the boys with whom he was brought up were lost during the war. I know that he would like me to say that, as a civilian community and a work force, the merchant marine lost more members during the war than any other. When I went out for a walk today, outside the Tower of London I saw a monument to British merchant seamen and fishermen.
I am not a member of the National Union of Seamen, but I am proud of its record. It fought against a system whereby captains were allowed to keep one third of seamen's basic pay so that they could discipline them if they got up to any mischief. The union fought against the voucher system. It fought for better pay and conditions. It is a sad day when we start to consider that industry in the same light as other industries. The Government must always consider new ways of helping seamen.
The new clause would not create bad industrial relations—anything but. Evening considering some of the conditions in which seamen must work, I believe that industrial relations between the NUS and employers are good. I remember what seamen had to put up with in the past. I support the new clauses, and I hope that we can all remember that British seamen deserve a better deal.

Mr. David Shaw: As I understand it, the new clause is about whether it is safe to have an industrial dispute on board ship. The seamen to whom I have spoken believe that it is safe and I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies he will say whether the Government

believe that that is the case. It is noteworthy that this new clause is amending an Act that has been in existence under both Conservative and Labour Governments.
I believe that the Floor of the House is the wrong place to raise an industrial dispute between a company and—

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what he said at the beginning of his speech about it being safe to have an industrial dispute on board ship? As the law stood and as our new clause has made clear, an industrial dispute can take place only when the vessel is safely moored at a berth.

Mr. Shaw: I accept that, but the key issue is not whether it is safe for the men and for the officers, but for any passengers who may or may not be on board or anyone in the port area involved with that ship. I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will comment upon that. I believe that that is the important question and I have no doubt that the public share my concern.
I do not believe that the Floor of the House is the right place to raise an industrial dispute that has severely affected my constituency in the past three months. I believe that such a course of action could inflame the dispute and make matters worse rather than improve the situation. When the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) spoke about the industrial dispute, I trust that he was not seeking to make matters worse because that would be the greatest tragedy of the dispute.
The seamen have put a strong case to me with regard to safety. I was sorry that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North did not say much about safety. I believe that there are important issues concerning the safety of the crew, passengers and all those involved in putting ships to sea.

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose—

Mr. Shaw: I did not seek to intervene in the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I should like to continue.
I fervently hope that an agreement is reached in the dispute. I have no vested interest in an agreement not being reached, unlike some other hon. Members. My interest in representing my constituency is that such an agreement should be reached as soon as possible and that it will not only be of benefit to the seamen and to officers, but of benefit to the public, the passengers and the company. Surely that must be good for everyone.
Such an agreement must be safe for the seamen and for the passengers. It must also be fair. A number of seamen have said that an agreement with the officers may be unfair in relation to their agreement. Any agreement reached must be fair to the seamen and to the officers—both agreements should stand side by side.
During the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North I was extremely upset. He said that he wanted to be fair to the company, but I do not believe that anything he said was fair to the company. I hold no brief for the company, but I hold a brief for the consituency of Dover.

Dr. Godman: Declare your interest.

Mr. Shaw: I have only a constituency interest.
I have a brief that requires everyone to be given a fair hearing, so that it is in the interests of the seamen to go to sea and of the company to run the ships. If either side is given an unfair advantage over the other, the other will withdraw from the negotiations, which is not satisfactory.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North gave profit figures of more than £100 million. He should look at the company results of Townsend Thoresen and Sealink. The turnover of each of those companies is only slightly more than £100 million, but their profits are considerably less. In the meetings that I have had with seamen they have not suggested that profits were so high.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North talked about the problems of the Channel tunnel being deferred until 1993. The Channel tunnel company has just raised £5 billion. The company and the seamen must be able to compete in 1993 against a project for which I hold no brief, which I do not like and which I have been against since 1973. Many Opposition Members voted for the Channel tunnel, which was appalling enough. Not only will it come into being in 1993 but there is a real risk that duty-free sales will be lost. We in Dover must face these facts.
It is no good saying that we can wait until 1 January 1990, or until 1 July. In Dover, the local authority, the shipping companies and the seamen have to plan today for the future. We cannot delay.
Without balanced argument and discussion on both sides, the company will be forced into a political debate, rather than a discussion based on common sense. People should have the opportunity to get together; all parties in Dover need to get together. The company needs to be able to survive and trade successfully and the seamen and officers should be able to work in reasonable conditions and reasonable safety. Speeches that bash any side in the dispute will get us nowhere.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) is the first basher that we have heard during the debate.
The new clause deals with the rights of seamen under the conditions that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) outlined. It deals with whether seamen should have the right, which other workers have, to withdraw their labour in certain circumstances—for example, when a vessel is berthed. If the hon. Member for Dover considered the matter, he might realise that one of those circumstances could arise if a vessel was not safe, in the opinion of its crew. If they felt that it should not be taken to sea because it was in an unsafe condition, they would then have the right not to sail it. At present, there is no right to object to sailing a vessel in that way, or to take such action.
We ought to examine the Government's attitude to trade unions in general and seamen in particular. I spent the whole war at sea. I went to sea before and after the war, so I know what happened at sea in the pre-war period, when we sailed in rust buckets and old tubs that were often not safe to be at sea at all.
The father of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) was lucky to have a bucket of hot water—such a thing was unavailable on many of the vessels on which I sailed in the pre-war period. We had to bring our own bunks aboard — straw mattresses covered with a piece of hessian that cost half-a-crown on the dock in Liverpool before we joined the vessel. Those were the conditions that prevailed for seamen. A tin of condensed milk had to last a month, and a seaman had to whittle two pieces of wood and peg them through two holes to keep out the jaspers for the rest of the voyage.
Seamen worked in such conditions before and during the war. There may have been reasons for that during the war because everyone was affected by the war. The ships and tramps that I served on were taken over for cargo, which was stowed in the very cabins in which we were living. We accepted such conditions during the war because seamen and people on shore just had to put up with them.
There is a press-gang mentality which says that seamen are a different breed and can be treated in a second, third or fourth-class way by their employers and by the Government who allegedly legislate on their behalf. It is about time that the Government started to take an interest in seamen. Seamen were the first to be affected by the war. On 3 September 1939, seamen were killed. They were the only group of people in Britain who were immediately affected by the war, and that continued right through the war. One would have thought that after the war the Government would have altered their mental attitude and that seamen would have been treated as other workers and given the same rights. Many of the constraints and restrictions that are part of the seaman's life should have been removed.
A seagoing vessel must be safe, because seamen carry burdens that would not be borne by people on shore. People working in power stations and firemen have to respond to emergencies. Those workers have seen changes that give them rights, but seamen are still excluded from almost every piece of progressive industrial legislation affecting health and safety. For some reason unknown to me, to seamen and to the National Union of Seamen, seafarers are excluded from the rights and privileges that almost every other worker enjoys. My hon. Friends were right to press that point.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) talked about industrial relations. How can industrial relations improve when the balance has shifted so heavily in favour of the employer? How are workers to respond when they have hanging over them the penalty of sequestration of union funds? How will seamen respond to the fact that, before a ballot is taken, an employer can go to the court? It is a denial of democracy when employers can go to court and demand that seamen should be constrained in their attempts to fight for better conditions.
People do not get round a table today to negotiate; they go to the courts. Discussions round a table have been eroded not by seamen but by legislation. The Government have taken the trade union away from the negotiating table and into the courts. The fact that that is welcomed by Conservative Members means that the future is dim for trade unions.
Seamen should have the same rights as other workers to take action when they know that the working conditions that obtain on a vessel are unacceptable. When the ship is in a safe berth, the seamen on board should have the right to withdraw their labour. Seamen should not be denied that right, and there is no justification for denying it.
Hon. Members should seriously consider the matter of discrimination against seamen who do a dangerous job in normal times and a far more dangerous one in time of war. Their only reward has been to be discriminated against by legislation and by employers. I hope that the House recognises that it is about time that that discrimination was ended and that seamen were given the rights that they deserve.

Mr. Adley: I shall be extremely brief. We have enjoyed the nostalgic reminiscences of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden).

Mr. Loyden: They are not nostalgic.

Mr. Adley: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) was kind enough to suggest that I try to take a reasonably impartial view of these matters. However, if the hon. Member for Garston recalls the words of a former leader of his party, Lord Wilson, in 1966, about the National Union of Seamen being a tightly knit group of politically motivated men, he will appreciate that the balance is probably about right as the Bill stands.

Mr. Stott: In response to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), I wish to say that I was one of those politically motivated men in the 1960s. The hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to know that, if I were one of them, there might have been an element of justice on their side during those years.
I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw). The premier ferry port in the United Kingdom is in his constituency and some of his constituents are members of the National Union of Seamen. I accept some of his comments. I have a little sympathy with the hon. Gentleman when he says that we should not progress this industrial dispute in the House of Commons because it is not the right place to do so, but, in one line of the Bill, the Government are withdrawing seamen's rights to take industrial action. The forum for this issue is therefore this Chamber this evening. It is here and now.
In one line of a schedule, the Government are removing the democratic rights of seamen to progress an industrial dispute. If the hon. Gentleman is in favour of the Government's proposals, I suggest that he goes back to Dover tomorrow and tells the members of the NUS in his constituency that the Government are revoking their democratic rights.
I do not want to detain the House very long. Like my hon. Friends the Members for Garston, for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), I was a member of the NUS in my formative years. I have to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Garston that, in my time, we got two tins of Coni Onie a week, not just one a month.

Mr. Loyden: Two tins a month.

Mr. Stott: The Navy was benevolent in those days.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) and I have had this conversation many times in the Chamber over the years. In any port in the world, one could see the red duster. The British merchant fleet was the world's premier merchant fleet. The hon. Gentleman and I and Sir Edward du Cann and Lord Callaghan have lamented the fact that the British merchant fleet has sunk so low and is but a pale shadow of its former self. The hon. Gentleman and I both know that, for an island trading nation such as ours, with our maritime history, that is an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
The hon. Gentleman and I have told the Government that something should be done to stop the rot and the way in which our Merchant Navy has been reduced over the years. The other people in the vanguard of the defence of the merchant marine have been the NUS. In document

after document, the NUS has defended its service and told the Government that there should be a different way in which to stop the fleet being diminished.
I pay tribute to the NUS, because it has at heart the best interests of this country, this trading nation. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Garston talking about the war, when many merchant seamen lost their lives. We can recount an occasion that is a little nearer to home. Only a few years ago, during the Falklands dispute—

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Merchant Shipping Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Durant.]

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Stott: That was a minor Exocet.
During the Falklands dispute, which lives in our memory, the British merchant marine and members of the National Union of Seamen, were the first to come to the colours. These men, constituents of the hon. Member for Dover and other hon. Members, are the people from whom the House, by the passage of the Bill, is seeking to withdraw rights.

Mr. David Mitchell: indicated dissent.

Mr. Stott: Never mind the Minister shaking his head. I have told the hon. Gentleman for the past eight years that the truth is not what he thinks it is but what is in writing. What is in writing is the fact that seamen will not be able to take the industrial action that they might want to.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) is a reasonable man, and he has drafted the new clauses before the House. They are in line with what the Government have been doing in terms of trade union legislation. My hon. Friend wants a ballot. He does not want a dispute at sea. Disputes have to occur when the ship is moored. What could be more reasonable?
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) has shown how seamen are different from other industrial workers. The records of the Merchant Navy and the NUS over 50 years show that industrial disputes were not needed. There were few of them. We do not have a great militant group of people, but reasonable people who are prepared to come to the defence of their country in time of war. Their reward is that this Conservative Government will, by this one Bill, deny them the basic democratic rights that are afforded to almost everyone else in the civilised world. That is why I shall vote for this new clause.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: One or two other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall try to be brief. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friends who have spoken already about the right to strike. That is one of the few freedoms — the most important freedom — for working men and women. If the Government continue down this road much further, that right will be removed from more groups of workers than the seamen. In the cause of trying to abolish Socialism—the Prime Minister's words—they would like to remove completely the right to strike from every section of the working class. Therefore, this is an extremely important debate.
The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) comes in here and talks about how we should not discuss industrial


relations on the Floor of the House. I have sat in here over the past fortnight, Mr. Speaker, and you and I have had to bear it all, day in, day out, listening to the Tory yobboes talking about Dundee. Industrial relations are coming out of their earholes and we have had industrial disputes by the bucketful.
Now Conservative Members have the hypocrisy to say, "Don't talk about industrial relations on the Floor of the House." My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) put it in context when he said that later on, in a schedule, the Government will be wiping out the right to strike. What is wrong with ordinary men and women having the right to strike? We have it in the House of Commons. Some have already exercised it this week—before we have even started our Easter holiday. In the last Division, 420 people clocked on, which means that more than 200 had gone on strike. The Government's majority dropped to 31.
A lot of the Tories have already packed up for Easter, yet they condemn the men and women at Dover for stopping people going on holiday. Where are Conservative Members going? Are they going to Klosters in the Swiss Alps? Conservative Members attack working men and women and say that they should not have the right to withdraw their labour. We have go-slows in here; they call it filibuster. Just imagine if they did that at the seaports. They would be making Standing Order 20 applications every day. So let us have less of this hypocrisy.
The dispute is also about overmanning. I read a report about a fellow called Peter Ford of P and O who had the gall to attack the workers at Dover. He said that there was overmanning. The report refers to a 94-day year. The only thing is that when one reads the small print it is 94 multiplied by 24 hours, which is three shifts, which is more than they work here. We are told about overmanning, but what about judges? They stand need telling working people that they cannot have a ballot when they do only 40 weeks in the year and have to be dragged from the Caribbean to turn up for work.
We have unelected judges telling working men and women that they cannot even have a ballot. They stand need talking in the Houses of Parliament about overmanning, attacking people who provide the wealth of this country. The other place has 1,100 people eligible to attend it. I have checked out the figures and discovered that the House of Lords has never got more than 500 people to clock on for work in my 18 years here. The other place has been overmanned by 50 per cent., even on major votes, yet the Tories have the cheek to talk about overmanning in industry.
I am pleased that my hon. Friends have stayed to vote for the new clause. It is very important to show that we are determined not to allow the Government to go any further towards removing working people's rights and liberties. The more we do that, the more we shall register accord outside.
I have come here tonight perhaps for another reason. I want to thank the seamen for all that they did to support the miners in their struggle in 1984–85. I want to give them the same right to take on their management, which is making a small fortune, supported by Conservative Members, many of whom are directors of the company lining its pockets out of the disputes. There ought to be a law in this place to stope those making money out of the

dispute marching into the Lobby to carry the Government's decisions which will lead to lower wages and to slave labour in the industry. That is what the Tory Government are after.
Yesterday we heard the appalling statement that the same Government who are trying to cut the wages of the seamen are to give £650 million to British Aerospace on the advice of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), who is the adviser to the chairman of that company. That is the sort of society that we have. We are on the side of those who are battling for better safety conditions at sea and for the right to withdraw their labour. I say to my hon. Friends that we need to be on the Government Benches after the next election to reverse this obnoxious clause.

Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is a very difficult act to follow, but I should like to make a plea on behalf of our fishermen.
The two new clauses use the definition
seaman employed in a ship registered in the United Kingdom".
I hope that that definition includes fishermen. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) is an old friend and represents many fishermen admirably, but I have some reservations about new clause 6. It seems that my hon. Friend agrees with some Conservative Members when he talks in terms of an industrial dispute that takes place when a ship is "securely moored" to the quay. I shall ignore what the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) said, as he evidently knows nothing about industrial relations in trawler companies on the H umber and elsewhere. Fishermen may be forced into an industrial dispute while the vessel is fishing.
Historically, share fishermen have rarely, if ever, been involved in industrial disputes. Disputes are foreign to them and have been for six or seven decades. Labour relations in the British trawler companies, however, are dramatically different. That sector is characterised by poor industrial relations and lousy management. Some trawler company managing directors could not manage an ice cream co-op or, as we say in Scotland, run a manadge.
I welcome the revival of trawler companies on Humberside and elsewhere, but my plea to the Government is that the trawler fishermen who are being employed should not be subjected to the disgraceful management that they, their brothers and fathers suffered even until recently.
I shall give one example of what I mean. It involves declaring loyal servants redundant. Several fishing companies received substantial decommissioning grants when they sold off their vessels. One company received more than £500,000 in decommissioning grants for a trawler which it sold for £900,000-odd. The trawler was built with a grant from the then White Fish Authority.
The crew were treated objectionably and squalidly. One of them — my brother Leslie — was employed by the company for 19 years and received £515 in redundancy. He got much more than many of his comrades who served on that trawler in their dangerous occupation. Fishermen may wish to refuse an order when a trawler is fishing and the skipper orders the deck hands to shoot the trawl in worsening weather.
No hon. Member can dispute that that has often happened in the Arctic. Sometimes, fishermen have died because they have obeyed an order and gone on to the


dangerous deck of a side trawler and been swept overboard. They should have been below deck in that worsening weather. I would not want a single recurrence of such an incident in the south Atlantic or anywhere because of the revival of the trawler companies. The Minister of State and his ministerial colleagues must protect those fishermen, because they deserve no less.

Mr. Ian McCartney: I rise in support of my hon. Friends in both new clauses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) said, I am a former member of the National Union of Seamen. In addition to that, for six years I worked in the port of Dover with the NUS and the Port of Dover harbour board.
At that time, major developments were taking place in the port, paid for by the then Labour Government, which allowed the port of Dover to expand to provide job opportunities in that part of east Kent. I was involved with the former Member of Parliament for Dorking, the late Keith Wickenden, for four years as a member of the organisation that campaigned for the protection of the port, proposals for the Channel tunnel and other aspects of the port's development.
I was more than surprised that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) did not make one comment indicating that he would support the 2,000 seafarers at Dover who were sacked by that company. He made no reproach whatsoever about the company's tactics and the threat of disinvestment by Sealink and by the company, yet at the end of his speech he said that he did not want to debate industrial relations. He really means that he wants industrial relations and seafarers' rights decided behind closed doors at Downing street and through the special relationship that has been built up between P and O and the Government.
That is what is behind this pernicious piece of legislation. The removal of section 42 did not simply wander into the other place late at night, proposed by a noble Lord. It was a deliberate strike against the National Union of Seamen.
The current dispute is only one of a series of incidents that have taken place within the shipping industry over a number of years. The shipping industry is fighting a battle about the right of seamen to negotiate working conditions, and the right to some say in the deregulation of the industry and the effects of deregulation on wages and conditions, health and safety at sea and among passengers and the role of the NUS.
I should like to examine the connections between the legislation and Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Dover said that he had no interest in P and O. However, he was one of the Conservative Members who spent 25 hours backing P and O, as he was involved scurrilously in attempting to force through the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill. He was involved in wining and dining that took place in relation to that Bill.

Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has told a complete and utter lie. I have not taken any wine or food in relation to the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill. I insist on you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, insisting on him withdrawing that statement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman must first withdraw his reference to a lie.

Then the hon. Gentleman who had the Floor might respond. The hon. Member must withdraw that expression.

Mr. Shaw: I will only withdraw if the hon. Member for Makerfield is prepared to withdraw.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must withdraw. We are all hon. Members.

Mr. Shaw: Based on the advice which I have received, it would seem appropriate, in the circumstances, despite the fact that an unfair and untrue allegation has been made, for me to withdraw the word "lie".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) will withdraw.

Mr. McCartney: I said that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) was one of the Members who had offered wining and dining until the fact that this was going on was exposed. If it had not been exposed, it would have continued. During the debate, hon. Members raised points of order. What I have said is legitimate, and I do not intend to withdraw what I said.

Mr. Shaw: I request you, please, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ask the hon. Member to be honourable and to comply with your request.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought I heard the hon. Gentleman say that wining and dining had been offered. I do not think that that necessarily reflects on the character of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw). What was offered and what was accepted are two quite different matters.

Mr. McCartney: I am sorry that there has been so much objection to what I said. I have here a copy of the invitation.
The company has recently given donations to the Conservative party. They amount to a considerable sum of money. Board members have relationships with Lord Young in terms of political advice, and Jeffrey Sterling is being canvassed for chairmanship of the Independent Broadcasting Authority. Many Conservative Members are known to have relationships with the company. Therefore, this aspect has been introduced at the behest of the company and of others who wish the negotiating rights of the National Union of Seamen to be diminished and in many respects destroyed and neutered. The company wants to introduce certain types of practice at Dover and throughout the British merchant fleet.
It is essential that the Government should come clean. Either they believe that seafarers should have the right to strike or they should admit that they have a cosy relationship with this company. The Government intend to allow it to purchase another piece of legislation that will deny to seamen the right to take industrial action to defend the health and safety of their members and of passengers who travel daily by sea from the port of Dover. The Government have not protected health and safety if one considers the iniquitous activities of the company. Seafarers have campaigned for the health and safety of passengers. The union wants to retain the right to take industrial action to defend themselves and the health and safety of the passengers whom they take daily to sea.

Mr. David Mitchell: As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said, there was a lengthy debate in Committee on the Bill's repeal of section 42(2) of the 1970


Act. Having been defeated there, the hon. Gentleman has returned with two variants of the section, each of which gives seamen quite unjustified immunity from the provisions of employment legislation as it applies to employees in other industries, and to each of which the Government are opposed.
It might help the House if I say a word or two about section 42(2) and why the Government accepted that it should be repealed. I should explain that, before 1970, seamen had no lawful method of taking industrial action. In the aftermath of the 1966 seamen's strike, the Pearson committee commented that a provision enabling industrial action to be taken by seamen within the law was desirable. In due course, section 42(2) was included in the Merchant Shipping Act 1970. It permits seamen to give not fewer than 48 hours' notice of termination of their employment in furtherance of an industrial dispute, provided that the ship is safely moored in a United Kingdom port. It also provides that a shipowner is not able to circumvent matters by ordering the ship to sea while that notice is being worked out.
Unfortunately, those who drafted section 42(2) did not foresee that it would be abused. Crews of short sea ferries have in the past given notice in sequence by departments, each group of seamen then withdrawing their notice before it expired. In that way, they have been able to immobilise the ship while, because they are still available for work, they are still being paid. This device, which I am sure the House will agree is indefensible, was adopted, for example, in Portsmouth in January 1985 following European Ferries' takeover of P and O's Portsmouth operation. However, even if section 42(2) were not open to abuse in that way, there would be a good case for its repeal, in that it has been largely overtaken.
The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) suggested that the seamen's right to strike was being removed. That is just not true. The hon. Gentleman then saw me shaking my head, and said, "Never mind shaking your head." What he meant was, "Never mind confusing me with facts." That is what he is worried about.
Let me tell the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) —who made up in volume what he lacked in accuracy—that the facts are very simple. The Merchant Shipping Act 1974 legitimised industrial action by seafarers while their ship was not at sea. Without section 42(2), seafarers will still be able to give notice of their intention to take industrial action in accordance with their terms of employment, in the same way as employees in other industries.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said that there had not been many examples of abuse of the system. We do not have to experience a break-in before we lock our doors. The provision closes a massive loophole that is open to abuse on a major scale.
The hon. Gentleman went on to suggest—as did the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden)—that the courts had forbidden the National Union of Seamen to ballot its members on a strike, and implied that that right to ballot had been removed. The High Court has ruled that, in balloting its members about a national strike, the union was in breach of injunctions made a month ago, covering the last illegal action, and was thus in contempt of court. The judge described the ballot as an "ingenious

but ingenuous" attempt to get round the law. The hon. Gentleman should not try to pull the wool over the eyes of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) is right: the House is not the place in which to seek to negotiate any trade disputes. The talks were adjourned by ACAS last Friday, until such time as it would be profitable for them to be resumed. I feel that we should leave the matter there.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) spoke with passion of the conditions of seamen between the wars. No one wants to return to those conditions. His remarks might be relevant if the new clauses introduced the right to strike, but they do not. That right is established in law, and there is no intention to remove it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover sought clarification of the position of seamen in dispute, on ships and ferries and at sea. The safety of passengers is assured, because for the right to strike is limited to when a ship is securely moored in a safe berth. There is no question of seamen going on strike in mid-Channel.
Each of the two new clauses, far from recognising that section 42(2) has been overtaken and is open to abuse, go considerably beyond it. New clause 4 would enable seafarers to immobilise a ship—for example, whenever the local trade union leadership considered that it had a trade dispute with one or more employers—during the holding of a ballot on the matter. No time limit is imposed on the conduct of the ballot, and, if the crews of foreign-going vessels are to be consulted, it would be well over two weeks. Even then, if the ballot failed to produce the desired result, there would be nothing to prevent another ballot from being called immediately, thereby maintaining the embargo on ships sailing.
Meanwhile, the crew would be available for work. It would have only given notice to strike; it would not have gone on strike. The crew would remain on full pay while immobilising the ship. Anyone who votes in favour of the new clause will vote for a charter for abuse. That would be an outrage, and I urge the House to reject the clause.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The outrage is that the Government, in introducing the Bill, made no reference to the removal of legitimate trade union rights from seamen. It was only because of Back-Bench pressure in another place that the Government caved in and accepted the argument of the General Council of British Shipping and others.
The Minister might have the advantage over my hon. Friends and me in not understanding the Bill. He talks about a massive loophole, but it has not been used over the past 15 or 18 years. He referred to ferries sailing from Portsmouth in advancing his argument, but it is the opinion of the General Council of British Shipping that under existing law it is possible for a master to order his crew to take his ship to sea within the 48-hour period of notice, provided that it will be engaged in a voyage and back in port before expiry of the notice. The Minister does not understand that his example does not come within current legislation.
We cannot accept that the position of seamen is analogous to that of workers in other industries, and my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 225.

Division No. 245]
[10.30 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Gould, Bryan


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Graham, Thomas


Allen, Graham
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Armstrong, Hilary
Grocott, Bruce


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Hardy, Peter


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Barron, Kevin
Haynes, Frank


Battle, John
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Beckett, Margaret
Heffer, Eric S.


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Henderson, Doug


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Hinchliffe, David


Bermingham, Gerald
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bidwell, Sydney
Home Robertson, John


Blair, Tony
Hood, Jimmy


Boyes, Roland
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Bradley, Keith
Hoyle, Doug


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Buckley. George J.
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Callaghan, Jim
Illsley, Eric


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Ingram, Adam


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Janner, Greville


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
John, Brynmor


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Clay, Bob
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Clelland, David
Lamond, James


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Leadbitter, Ted


Cohen, Harry
Lewis, Terry


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Litherland, Robert


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Livingstone, Ken


Corbett, Robin
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Loyden, Eddie


Cousins, Jim
McAllion, John


Cox, Tom
McAvoy, Thomas


Crowther, Stan
McCartney, Ian


Cryer, Bob
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cummings, John
McFall, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McKelvey, William


Dalyell, Tam
McNamara, Kevin


Darling, Alistair
McTaggart, Bob


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McWilliam, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Madden, Max


Davis, Terry (B'harn Hodge H'l)
Marek, Dr John


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dixon, Don
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dobson, Frank
Maxton, John


Doran, Frank
Meale, Alan


Douglas, Dick
Michael, Alun


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Eadie, Alexander
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Eastham, Ken
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Morgan, Rhodri


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Mullin, Chris


Fatchett, Derek
Murphy, Paul


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Nellist, Dave


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Flannery, Martin
O'Neill, Martin


Flynn, Paul
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Parry, Robert


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Patchett, Terry


Foster, Derek
Pendry, Tom


Foulkes, George
Pike, Peter L.


Fraser, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Galbraith, Sam
Prescott, John


Galloway, George
Primarolo, Dawn


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Randall, Stuart


George, Bruce
Richardson, Jo


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Robertson, George


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Robinson, Geoffrey


Gordon, Mildred
Rogers, Allan





Rooker, Jeff
Turner, Dennis


Ruddock, Joan
Vaz, Keith


Salmond, Alex
Wall, Pat


Sheerman, Barry
Walley, Joan


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Smith, C. (lsl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Winnick, David


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Snape, Peter
Worthington, Tony


Soley, Clive
Wray, Jimmy


Spearing, Nigel
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Steinberg, Gerry



Stott, Roger
Tellers for the Ayes:


Strang, Gavin
Mr. Allen McKay and


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Mrs. Llin Golding


Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)



NOES


Adley, Robert
Cran, James


Aitken, Jonathan
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Alexander, Richard
Curry, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Allason, Rupert
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Alton, David
Day, Stephen


Amess, David
Devlin, Tim


Amos, Alan
Dorrell, Stephen


Arbuthnot, James
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dover, Den


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Dunn, Bob


Ashby, David
Durant, Tony


Atkinson, David
Eggar, Tim


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fallon, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Farr, Sir John


Baldry, Tony
Favell, Tony


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Batiste, Spencer
Fookes, Miss Janet


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Forman, Nigel


Bendall, Vivian
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Forth, Eric


Benyon, W.
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bevan, David Gilroy
Franks, Cecil


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Freeman, Roger


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
French, Douglas


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fry, Peter


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gill, Christopher


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Goodlad, Alastair


Bowis, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grant, Sir Anthony (CarnbsSW)


Brazier, Julian
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bright, Graham
Hargreaves, Ken (Hynadburn)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Harris, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Haselhurst, Alan


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hayward, Robert


Browne, John (Winchester)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Burns, Simon
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Burt, Alistair
Howells, Geraint


Butcher, John
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow. W)


Butler, Chris
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hunter, Andrew


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Carrington, Matthew
King, Rt Hon Tom (Briagwater)


Carttiss, Michael
Knapman, Roger


Cash, William
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Chapman, Sydney
Knox, David


Chope, Christopher
Lang, Ian


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Latham, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lawrence, Ivan


Colvin, Michael
Lee, John (Pendle)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Cope, John
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Cormack, Patrick
Lilley, Peter






Livsey, Richard
Moss, Malcolm


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Neale, Gerrard


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Nelson, Anthony


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Neubert, Michael


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Nicholls, Patrick


Maclean, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Madel, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Malins, Humfrey
Page, Richard


Mans, Keith
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Maples, John
Pawsey, James


Marland, Paul
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Portillo, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Powell, William (Corby)


Maude, Hon Francis
Price, Sir David


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Raffan, Keith


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rathbone, Tim


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Redwood, John


Miller, Hal
Riddick, Graham


Miscampbell, Norman
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Ryder, Richard


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Sackville, Hon Tom





Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Thornton, Malcolm


Shaw, David (Dover)
Tracey, Richard


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Tredinnick, David


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shersby, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Sims, Roger
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wallace, James


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Squire, Robin
Warren, Kenneth


Stanbrook, Ivor
Watts, John


Steen, Anthony
Wells, Bowen


Stern, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Widdecombe, Ann


Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Wilkinson, John


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wilshire, David


Sumberg, David
Wolfson, Mark


Summerson, Hugo
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Woodcock, Mike


Taylor, John M (Solihull)



Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Tellers for the Noes:


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Mr. David Lightbown.


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 5

SAFETY AT SEA

'1. That the Secretary of State shall annually report to Parliament on matters affecting safety at sea and that in particular such a report must include:

(a) all actions taken by the Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents.
(b) all discussions with representatives of other nations concerning safety at sea.
(c) all changes in primary and secondary legislation intended to improve safety at sea.
(d) all voluntary agreements concerning safety at sea reached by, or with, private companies.
(e) an assessment of the need for change in the design of ships, in the furtherance of safety at sea.
(f) an assessment of the effect of the working practices or seamen, masters and companies, on safety at sea.

2. That the duty on the Secretary of State in sub-section (1) above, shall not be deemed to be fulfilled, until the report has been accepted by affirmation of both Houses of Parliament.'.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Amendment (a) to the new clause, after subsection 1(f), insert—
'(g) an assessment of the impact of Safety at Sea legislation covering registered British fishing vessels;
(h) an account of the financial assistance provided from public funds to defray expenses incurred in meeting statutory training requirements on skippers and crew members of registered British fishing vessels'
New clause 13 — Safety at Sea of British fishing vessels—


'(1) The Secretary of State shall report annually to Parliament on matters affecting the safety at sea of registered British fishing vessels and that such a report will include an account of the financial assistance provided from public funds to support the training costs of skippers and crew members of registered British fishing vessels incurred in meeting statutory training requirements.
(2) The duty on the Secretary of State imposed by subsection (1) above, shall not be deemed to be fulfilled until the report has been accepted by affirmation of both Houses of Parliament.'.

Mr. Hughes: The new clause relates to safety at sea. It is, tragically, just over a year since the Zeebrugge disaster —a night that none of us will ever forget. We heard first that the vessel had gone down and the grave danger that all the passengers had been lost, along with the crew. There was then a partial sense of relief when the news came through that the vessel had capsized and was on a sandbank. Then came the awful news about the number of people who had lost their lives.
Part of the reason for the new clause is to make absolutely sure that the issue of safety at sea is kept in the front of our minds on every possible occasion. Those of us who have seaport connections or who have a family history of seafaring, know that all too often people make the right noises about death at sea. In some cases, collections are taken and funds set up. People give generously, but then they forget all about safety at sea until the next major incident. Sadly, "out of sight, out of mind" is a phrase that applies all too often to merchant shipping.
It is essential that we keep the issue to the fore, and that is the intention of the new clause. We should consider two

aspects of safety at sea. The first is the design of ships, their seaworthiness and maintenance. The second is manning and how proper management and crew practices can assist safety. Despite what the Government have done since the Herald of Free Enterprise sank—I concede that things have been done to improve safety — the bulk of the Government's actions have been in relation to the human element of safety.
10.45 pm
There is a major disagreement between the Secretary of State and myself, and between the General Council of British Shipping and the organisers of the Herald of Free Enterprise Families Association, on the safety of the basic design of ro-ro ferries. In a letter to me on 13 January, the Secretary of State said that the Government do not regard existing ro-ro ferries as unsafe.
None of us wishes to be alarmist, and to some extent I accept the statistics that are given. They are always comparative statistics. The number of deaths at sea was comparatively small before the Herald of Free Enterprise sank. It was a benchmark in disaster for ro-ro ferries. It is true to say that more people have been killed because of Boeing 747s crashing than because of ro-ro ferries sinking, but that does not alter the fact that there are serious grounds for doubting the inherent safety and stability of ro-ro ferries.
It is commonplace to say—the Minister said it on Second Reading and it has been said since—that ro-ro ferries are perfectly safe as long as they do not sail with their bow doors open and water does not get in. That goes without saying. But one could say with equal truth and emphasis that the Titanic was a perfectly safe ship as long as it did not hit an iceberg. To say that a ship is safe as long as water does not get in proves nothing at all. The problem with ro-ro ferries is that once water gets in they become unstable and can capsize quickly.
The statistics on ro-ro ferries are alarming. There are about 2,500 ro-ro ferries in the world, 400 of which have been involved in serious incidents. In 1981, a Norwegian organisation reported on 243 ro-ro ferries that had been involved in incidents at sea over a 20-year period, and it found that 60 per cent. of them had sunk in less than 10 minutes. That is a very short time. In 1981, when the German ship the Ems sank, it was the 19th incident involving ro-ro ferries in two and a half years. The insurers were so worried that they began to add premiums to the insurance. Since then there have been many incidents. In 1980, the Tollan and the Zenobia capsized. Nearer to home, in 1981, the Anion beached. European Gateway keeled over in 1982, and on 5 March this year the Vinca Gorthon capsized in the North sea.
For many years people have warned about the dangers of capsizing. Indeed, the International Maritime Organisation has been discussing the problems of large, open-deck ships since the 1960s. Several reports on the danger of capsizing have been published. One could go through all the reports that have been published, but it is late, so I shall consider reports that are immediately to hand in Britain. In February, the Nautical Institute warned of the "inherent vulnerability" of ro-ro ferries. It recommended that bulkheads should be fitted, that there should be moveable shutters and protection for the rear bow in terms of water ingress.
I am not one of those people who often refer to what they have said before, but on the day that we had the


statement from the Secretary of State about the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise many of my hon. Friends, and I argued that we needed some method to provide stability for much longer than is currently the case.
A few days ago, the Royal Institute of Naval Architects said:
ro-ro passenger ships … despite their full adherence to the law and regulations, are unacceptably vulnerable in that there is a likelihood of rapid capsize
and that could lead to "catastrophic loss of life." The International Maritime Organisation is the only organisation that appears to support the Government's view that there is no real need to do anything. As long ago as 1977, that organisation said that it did not think that ro-ro ferries required special consideration.
I accept that there has been consultation about closed-circuit television, draught gauges, escape windows, deck doors, and so on. That is welcome, but it has been rather slow in coming. I do not believe that the Government have addressed the central issue of design with sufficient urgency.
I accept that if the modifications that we regard as necessary are put in place they will be expensive. It has been argued that such modifications could cost between £250,000 and £500,000. That price must be paid. If the Secretary of State thought it necessary to provide Government assistance to carry out the necessary safety requirements, I would not argue against that. I still believe that it might be the responsibility of the ferry companies to make the ships safe, but I would support the Secretary of State were he to say that, in the interests of safety, such things had to be done and that, to protect the competitive edge of British shipping, he wanted to inject some money into the industry.
This is an important matter. The Secretary of State, however—I want to be as fair to him as I can—gives the impression that he is laid back and does not want to get too excited about it. In a letter to the General Council of British Shipping, he said:
The Government is not interested in making rules that fail in their basic objective.
That is one of the major quarrels between us. I believe that it is absolutely necessary to make the modifications to make the ships safe. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take a stronger line when he replies.
The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) made a characteristically vigorous speech, and I do not object to that. However, I object to him giving the impression in a previous debate that I am not concerned about the safety of ferries or their passengers. In case there is any doubt in his mind or in anyone else's, I want to emphasise that I believe that the safety of ships, passengers and crew is paramount. That is why we want improvements to be made.
So far, I have concentrated on ferries because, naturally, they are in the forefront of discussion at the moment, but deep sea vessels should also be considered. I know that the Secretary of State is bound to be concerned about that. Indeed, the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney)—he is not in the Chamber at the moment—who was a Front-Bench spokesman on transport for many years, tried to persuade the Government to set up an inquiry into the loss of the motor vessel Derbyshire. I am glad that the Government

set up that inquiry, but it took I forget how many years for it to happen. The Secretary of State should have a duty in law to report to the House on ferry safety.
Other issues might be discussed tonight, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) will be able to deal with some of them later. Crew hours and fatigue are important issues. If a crew are overworked and tired because they do not have proper off-duty hours they cannot be expected to be up to the mark on ferry safety. I hope the Secretary of State will accept that the new clause is intended to be helpful. No sensible person in the shipping industry would object to his reporting annually to the House on safety at sea.

Mr. Salmond: I subscribe to the remarks of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). I also want to extend the debate to considering the crucial issue of safety at sea in the fishing industry.
The amendment and the new clauses would require the Secretary of State to account to Parliament annually for safety at sea in the fishing industry, particularly as it is affected by public funds for training for safety. Such accountability is needed to expose the scandal of the lack of support for such training to meet mandatory training requirements that are shortly to be imposed on the industry—requirements to do with fire fighting, survival and first aid.
The House has been made aware many times that sea fishing is an extremely dangerous industry—four times as dangerous as mining. When my predecessor, Sir Albert McQuarrie, introduced his Safety At Sea Bill in 1986, he enjoyed general support from all sides of the House. Hon. Members considered it an important measure, but talk is cheap. That support was not backed by a guarantee or offer of public provision. The Safety At Sea Act 1986 was passed with no Government undertaking to provide public funds to support the mandatory training that was required by the legislation.
Support for training in the fishing industry is under pressure in the Sea Fish Industry Authority — first, because it is extending training to the onshore sector, which hon. Members will agree is a valuable exercise. Secondly, the authority is under pressure because support under the authority's development programme is not guaranteed by MAFF beyond next year. The third cause of pressure is the additional training that will be required by the mandatory requirements of the Safety At Sea Act.
The Government say that, because the Act was a private Member's Bill, it involved no Government commitment to funding. That might be true, were it not for two important facts. In 1986, the mandatory provisions on training in clause 2 of the Bill were drafted by the Government. It was, in effect, a Government clause within a private Member's measure, and the Government brought it forward on Report.
Serious questions must be asked about how the clause on mandatory training was introduced. The Minister of State said of the requirements:
In Committee, I also said that it was right for the fishing industry, not the taxpayer, to meet the cost of training. It was most encouraging, therefore, to learn that at the meeting the following day of the fishing industry safety group the body representative of the views of fishermen's organisations on safety matters, no objections were expressed to the proposal to introduce a new clause dealing with training on this basis." —[Official Report, 9 May 1986; Vol. 97, c. 382.]
I looked back at the minutes of that meeting of the Fishing Industry Safety Group held on 24 April 1986. Far


from no objections being raised, I found that in the last part of the minutes both Mr. William Hay, president of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, and Mr. Gregg of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, made it clear that they had reservations about the lack of public financial support for the mandatory training requirements in the Safety at Sea Act 1986. I do not know whether the Minister of State was being economical with the truth, but he was most certainly being economical with those minutes.
11 pm
We have an impasse that is reflected in the response to the industry by Lord Brabazon of Tara in a telex of 25 March. In that telex he justified the injustice in the Bill. The Bill provides for £3·5 million to meet the annual training costs of the merchant shipping industry. No one would deny that that is a good measure, but in no measure are the Government willing to introduce public support for mandatory training and safety in the fishing industry, which would cost less than a tenth of what is proposed for the merchant shipping industry.
In his telex to the fishing industry representatives on 25 March, Lord Brabazon of Tara would not even concede a meeting to those representatives to discuss the future public provision for training in the industry. That is a measure of the Government's contemptuous attitude to this important matter. We need an annual report to Parliament so that we can have an account of the intransigent and contemptuous attitude that the Government are taking towards safety at sea as it affects the fishing industry.
I do not know whether the Minister is aware of the anger and frustration caused in the fishing industry by the Government's intransigence in this matter. To provide fully public funded support for mandatory training would cost about £250,000 a year. In the wholeness of Government funds, that is not a large sum. Can the Minister not find it within himself to say that the Government will look again at this matter and offer some public support for safety training in the fishing industry? That would show that they regard the lives of fishermen as being as important as the lives of people in other industries.

Mr. Adley: I am grateful to have this opportunity to speak to the new clauses. The fishermen of Mudeford in my constituency would doubtless benefit from the annual report suggested in the amendment to the new clause. Oil exploration has given rise to hitherto unforseen hazards for many fishermen, certainly in the comparatively crowded waters of Christchurch bay. The mere fact that a report would be presented to Parliament could concentrate the minds of those undertaking oil exploration on the potential hazards that that could create for fishermen.
I should like to speak to the opening sentence of new clause 5, which says that the Secretary of State
shall annually report to Parliament on matters affecting safety at sea".
Her Majesty's Coastguard training school is in Highcliffe in my constituency. I recently visited that excellent establishment and I am afraid that I found some rather unhappy and uneasy men, who feel that the Department of Transport, which is their lord and master, has no long-term plan for that establishment. There is no more dedicated body of men in the ranks of the Civil Service

than those in the coastguard. It was therefore disquieting to receive a letter from a constituent who works at the coastguard training school. He was constrained to write:
We do feel pawns in some large scale game about which no-one bothers to inform us.
He went on to refer to a telex, and this might interest the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). That telex, received a few days ago from the Department of Transport, refers to the closure of the sub-centres for maritime rescue at Hartland Point, Moray and at Ramsey on the Isle of Man. My constituents say that the district controller of one of those sections knew nothing about the closure until he received the telex. That is a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs.
Perhaps the reason why I cannot reveal the name of my constituent's name to the House might appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). The letter goes on to say:
After all, the Government expects us to show loyalty and accountability to our Minister and not to discuss policy with the media or even MPs under threat of the Official Secrets Act, and yet the Minister is allowed to treat his own staff in this cavalier way. All we are asking for is better communication and a little consideration.
I make my few remarks in an attempt to put those points on the record. Let me give the Secretary of State another example. My constituents were asked to prepare a report on the breeches buoy and spent many months preparing that report. On the very day that they sent it off to the Department, a message arrived saying that the Department would no longer use the breeches buoys. I can think of no better illustration of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.
The excellent establishment at Highcliffe has substantial facilities.

Mr. James Wallace: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell the House whether he knows what conclusions that report drew on the question of maintaining the breeches buoy?

Mr. Adley: I should be happy to discuss that matter with the hon. Gentleman, but, at this late hour, it would be unfair to hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate to enter into a technical discussion for the reasons for the Department's decision. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not think that I am discourteous. I am more than happy to pass on to him any information in my possession on that subject.
Facilities for training overseas staff at Highcliffe coastguard training centre are undoubtedly the most up-to-date in Europe and revenue could undoubtedly be earned by doing so. My constituents are simply asking that the Department gives them some indication of its thinking on the matter.
Much of the equipment is at best antediluvian and only experienced, determined and courageous men could make proper and effective use of it. Coupled with that, there are technical changes in communications equipment. Decisions are now taken by people in the Department who are far away from the coastline and often have no practical experience. One is left with the uneasy feeling that money is the main priority, rather than safety. Decisions taken on communications equipment get the priorities the wrong way round for those who might find themselves in the unfortunate position of having to use that equipment.
Local authorities are being canvassed for their views on taking over the cliff rescue service, an important part of


coastguard work. Again, my constituents running that excellent establishment simply wish to know what is the Government's thinking on this matter.
If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is unable to accept new clause 5, I hope that he will at least reply in detail to my recent letter as soon as possible and do everything possible to allay my constituents' fears and to produce a five-year plan so that this fine body of men may know that they have a firm and secure future.

Mr. Bob Clay: The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) referred to a constituent who said that he had the impression that money is a more important consideration then safety. That sums up the attitude of shipowners and the Government to this matter.
I am particularly concerned about the roll-on/roll-off ferry system, which sums up the choice facing the Government and shipowners—that between money and safety. If they were not putting money before safety, the Government would already have legislated. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) quoted from the report of the Royal Institute of Naval Architects. It does not have an axe to grind against this Government, and is not great friend of the Opposition and the trade unions, but that report makes interesting reading.
Apart from what my hon. Friend has already quoted, it says:
In the light of circumstances which now pertain it is considered that current designs of Ro-Ro passenger ships now in service, despite their full adherence to the law and regulations, are unacceptably vulnerable in that there is a likelihood of rapid capsize under certain conditions, particularly collision.
That should be the end of the matter, unless the Government can produce overwhelming evidence that the National Institute of Naval Architects does not know what it is talking about. If there is a risk, why take it?.
Let us spell out the scale of the risk. I understand from talking to professionals, some of whom were associated with the production of this report, horrific as it is to say this, that the Zeebrugge disaster could have been worse. The loss of life on the ironically named Herald of Free Enterprise would have been a small incident compared with the potential catastrophe that could happen with roll-on/roll-off ferries. The Herald of Free Enterprise was on its own. It was not in collision with another vessel. It was in shallow water, and it was not one of the largest of the modern generation of the roll-on/roll-off ferries. I am not an alarmist, but if two ferries larger than that one collided in mid-Channel, in deep water, there would be a loss of 4,000 to 5,000, so quickly would everybody go down. That is the size of the potential disaster.
The Government's attitude is extraordinarily complacent. What needs to be done? According to the Royal Institute of Naval Architects:
Longer term research will refine solutions, but the means of reducing the likelihood of rapid capsize should he adopted now. These include the fitting of door or shutter-type transverse bulkheads on vehicle decks; the judicious use of longitudinal bulkheads; the addition of sponsons or bulges; the reduction of permeability by filling spaces with buoyant material and various similar improvements.
If the shipowners will not carry out such measures immediately, and argue that they will lose the competitive

edge and cannot afford to have ferries out of service, the Government should oblige them to do it, and they could start that process by accepting this new clause.
Furthermore, if the Government were to provide grants to compensate ferry owners for the loss of service while the ferries were being adapted, and for the cost of the adaptation, it would be reasonable for the Government to do so in exchange for an obligation on the part of the ferry owners to have the work done in British ship repair yards. All of them are screaming out for work and are placed in areas of high unemployment, like my constituency. We could place contracts for all the work that needs to be done to all these ferries without the need for competition between one yard and another. If the work is placed in all the different shipyards, it would be done more quickly.
The only argument against this logical and sane proposal, apart from its cost, is that it will give foreign ferry owners a competitive edge. That seems to me to be an illogical argument. The Government should come down from cloud-cuckoo-land and accept that the work needs to be done to make the ferries safe. They would find that British ferries that had the work done would have a very considerable competitive edge over their foreign counterparts. If not only the ferry owners but the British Government could point out that we now had the only safe roll-on, roll-off ferries in the world, that would be a popular unilateral move with passengers not only in Britain but universally.
11.15 pm
There is every reason for doing the work; it is crying out to be done. Thousands of lives may be at stake, because a greater tragedy than that involving the Herald of Free Enterprise could still happen. The amount of money required is not enormous, yet the Government will not do the work. In the recent Budget, the Government gave away £2·1 billion in tax cuts to those paying over the 40 per cent.mark. They are making a £650 million handout to British Aerospace for taking over Rover. The cost of this proposal is chickenfeed in comparison; the mere millions of pounds needed could be made available tomorrow, and we could start making the ferries safe, which is our main concern. As a useful side product, socially useful work would be provided in shipyards and ship repair yards in areas of desperately high unemployment.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: New clause 5 is a well-intentioned new clause, and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) was absolutely right to remind us all that the memories of the Zeebrugge disaster still cast a long shadow over our proceedings. They cast a longer shadow still over the east Kent coastal communities, which my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and I have the honour to represent. They have suffered sad losses, and the scars may not heal in people's lifetimes.
Against that background, there is one aspect of safety that the House should ask the Government to comment upon, because it has an effect on the current dispute which has troubled the House this evening and which is causing so much anxiety in the communities of east Kent and to travellers this Easter. There is a fierce—even bitter— feeling that safety is being jeopardised by some of the proposals that are being put forward. That may be a very unfair suggestion, but I have no doubt that the many officers and seamen who have advanced that argument to me at constituency surgeries have done so with complete


sincerity and not because they are trying to protect their jobs or defend their livelihoods, even though that may be part of their obvious posture in such a dispute. There is a genuine and sincere feeling that some of the proposals advanced by P and O Ferries will have an impact on the safety not only of crews but of passengers. I hope that the Secretary of State can be persuaded to comment on that and perhaps reassure us on it.
There are two sides to the question. On the one hand, P and O says, "In order to save money and make ourselves competitive with the Channel tunnel, and so on, we need new manning levels." On a purely commercial basis, few people can disagree with that suggestion. It is the company's right to make such changes, unless, of course, they affect safety. But P and O says, "Don't be ridiculous. We are doing no more than bringing in manning levels that exist on many other ferries plying several other routes—foreign ferries in particular. We have two and half crews per ship, which is in line with other companies. It is ridiculous to suggest that we are jeopardising safety merely by introducing the same manning levels as other companies."
The ferry men, on the other hand, say, "We are suddenly being asked to work 72-hour shifts — three days on the trot— and we are being allowed rest periods of only six hours per 24-hour shift. We will be very tired officers if such shift patterns are allowed to prevail." The one thing that the Zeebrugge disaster and the findings that flowed from it have told us is that a tired seaman can be a dangerous one. Thereafter, one listens to representations about fatigue. Moreover, a short sea route seaman is likely, when trying to get his six hours sleep, to be disturbed by a cacophony of noise — klaxons, lorries moving and anchor chains being drawn up. It is therefore not easy to obtain proper rest periods on such routes.
The Secretary of State's officials must have given some consideration to this matter. The Government have a clear duty to ensure that safety at sea prevails. What I want to hear is that the Government have considered representations such as I have described. Are they satisfied that the proposed shift arrangements will not adversely affect safety at sea? I think that that is a reasonable question and the right one to ask tonight.
The fundamental concern is not whether the ferry company has a right to manage in its best commercial interests—of course it does—nor whether the seamen have a right to put forward their own arguments about manning levels — of course they do. Only the Government can say whether a certain pattern of sleep and rest periods is adequate. I was pleased to see that the new clause requires the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the voluntary agreements reached at sea and on the pattern of work and their effect on safety and fatigue.
Is the Secretary of State happy with the new rostering proposals? I do not mean that he should interfere in the company's right to manage, but he should ensure that safety is not affected. That is what I hope to hear from him in his winding-up speech.

Mr. Terry Fields: Before I came to this debate, I was given a note from the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), who asked me to say that he could not be here because he is involved with some other business in the House. I do not usually carry on as a fag for the Tories or anyone else, but

at least the hon. Gentleman had the decency to see the families of people who died in the Herald of Free Enterprise and arranged a meeting with the Secretary of State to discuss some of their problems. I therefore do not mind passing on a message from the hon. Member, which is more than I can say for the few Conservative Members present who were members of the Committee but made no valuable contributions to our debates, in spite of the widely known fact that the vessels we are discussing are unsafe. They just sat there like dummies and, at the appropriate time, voted with the Government.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) was talking about the unions, I heard the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), who is no longer present, say, from a sedentary position, something about crocodile tears. In Committee, he had a lot to say about training fishermen. He explained that he had only recently been down at his local seaport and that the men who had gone to sea had not come back. There had been an accident. I feel sorry for them. I feel sorry for any group of workers who suffer injury or death in the course of duty. When he was making that contribution, the local television fellow and the press were there. Immediately after making his speech, he went out and gave a press report.
At the next sitting, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) moved an amendment asking for finance for training the crews of the various fishing boats. The hon. Member for St. Ives stood up in Committee and said that he was attracted to what the hon. Gentleman had proposed and he would support the amendment. However, when it came to the vote, the Minister spoke against the amendment and the hon. Member for St. Ives turned tail and voted with the Government, having made a wonderful speech about his committment to his constituents. Conservative Members give support only in words.
In the Lobbies, hon. Members said that new clause 4 was the most important one under discussion. From the point of view of trade unions it was important. But if there is no safety at sea, it does not matter if one has a union card in one's back pocket. The new clause is important for the seafarers and their families.
We hesitate to express an opinion as to why, in Committee, the Government, through the Minister, refused time and again to acknowledge the instability of the ro-ro ferries, despite the evidence that was presented to them.
On 12 March, the New Scientist reported:
When Margaret Thatcher visited the rescue effort at Zeebrugge last weekend she spoke about design failures. She told reporters: 'It is the fundamental design of the ferry that I understand is the problem. That is a factor that will have to be looked at very quickly because public confidence has been very severely jolted.'
A spokesman from the Department of Transport reiterated the point, adding that it was 'well known' that ro-ro ferries had design problems. By Monday afternoon the Government had changed its view to coincide with that of Townsend Thoresen's management, which claimed that the issue was one of operating procedures, not design.
John Moore, the Transport Secretary, told the House of Commons: 'I have no evidence to support that this [the accident] was due to any fault in the design of the ship.' However, he suggested that, in future, ferries should have alarm lights on their bridges to warn of open sea doors.
The current Secretary of State was asked whether improvements will take into account the fact that such vessels sink so quickly. He replied that the sinking of such vessels is, fortunately, exceedingly rare. Yet we have a


catalogue of such ferries sinking over a period of five or 10 years. That is a fact, whether we are talking about the Herald of Free Enterprise or the European Gateway. Lord Justice Sheen was critical of the tardiness of the Department of Transport. When told that the recommendations of the European Gateway inquiry, which reported in 1984, had not been implemented, he said:
I cannot understand the reluctance to lead in the field of safety.
In Committee, I made certain statements about the cosy relationship between the Government, P and O and other parties. P and 0 is trying to screw the workers, take away their trade union rights through the courts, drive down their living standards, reduce their numbers and extend their working hours. Why are the Government doing nothing to stop the carnage for which Townsend Thoresen and P and O are responsible? I would have liked to include in the Bill the liability of the Government, because they know about the ineffectuality of the reporting and the unsafety of the ro-ro ferries, but they have done nothing about it.
A little investigation shows that the chairman of P and O, Sir Jeffrey Sterling, in the 1988 edition of "Who's Who", lists as his clubs the Garrick club, which has on its books the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Carlton club, which has on its books the Thatchers, Lord Whitelaw and Tony Brooks, who used to work for MI5 and was involved in the scandal with the Wilson Government. I did not know that the Secretary of State for Transport is also a member of the Carlton club. Sir Jeffrey Sterling was the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's adviser. The Prime Minister appointed Lord Justice Sheen to head the inquiry into the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster. Sir Jeffrey Sterling is a member of the Hurlingham club; so is Lord Justice Sheen.
In 1985, 1986 and 1987, P and O made large financial donations to the Tory party. If I went to the Liverpool, Broadgreen masonic lodge I should find that although these people wring their hands and beat their breasts they do not give a damn for those who lost their lives on the Herald of Free Enterprise. If Conservative Members were interested in safety at sea, they would join us in the Lobby.
11.30 pm
I could give the names of 20 or 30 experts in maritime affairs who have said that the ro-ro ferries are unsafe, but Conservative Members refuse to accept what they say. They stand condemned by their inactivity. It is no use them telling the families of the 200 people who died in the Zeebrugge disaster that they are interested in safety. A personal friend of mine and a good comrade, Geoff Haney, a cook from Manchester, went down with that ship.
If the Government are sincere when they say that they want to provide better safety for the travelling public, they should join us in the Lobby when we divide on the new clause. Millions will be condemned to death if the Government take no action. If they do not introduce legislation to provide better safety at sea, they will be exposed as having failed to deal with the needs of ordinary people.
Captain Spencer, a member of the Honourable Company of Master Mariners and managing director of Baltic Control UK Ltd., wrote to Lloyd's List International and said:

Needless to say, the class societies are still servant of the owner and subject also to the will of government giving them the usual conflict of interest.
There is a conflict of interest. The Government had better come clean. If Conservative Members want to do something positive tonight, they should vote for new clause 5.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I support the new clause because safety at sea is so important. I regret that no provision has been made for financial assistance to fishermen who take survival courses. I referred to this point on Second Reading. I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Transport has been unable to incorporate that provision in the Bill. I am even more sorry that between Second Reading and today there was no meeting to discuss the matter with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. The peremptory manner in which the Under-Secretary of State for Transport dismissed the idea of holding a meeting with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation was disturbing.
I wish to refer briefly to the withdrawal of the breeches buoy rescue equipment. I have received a number of letters from the islands off my constituency. Not all of them are from coastguards: many of them are from community councils, whose members are deeply disturbed about the matter. Many hon. Members visit the islands, and will know what I am talking about. On the island of Tiree, for example, the water around the shore is very shallow. There are many inshore fishermen, whose number is vastly increased in summer, and wind-surfing is a popular sport. There are, however, no other rescue facilities to operate in the event of an inshore accident. On the island of Coll, helicopter and lifeboat services are at least an hour away.
Deep concern has been voiced by the people on those islands, particularly about the short notice given of the withdrawal. I believe that a statement was made about five weeks ago, and the equipment is to be withdrawn on 31 March. I hope that the Minister can give me some reassurance about how rescues will be carried out when helicopters and lifeboats are not easily available.

Mr. Loyden: I spoke earlier about the state of vessels that went to sea in the pre-war period, and indeed during the war, and the degree of safety and maintenance then prevalent on merchant ships. I do not wish to dwell on that topic. Let me say, however, that we are now in an entirely different position. We are now talking about modern technology in both the building and the design of ships, and we are bound to take into account not only design but manning when considering the question of safety.
Before I came to the House, when I earned a decent, honest living, I remember being involved in negotiations with an employer about manning of vessels in the bay and river of the Mersey. The company's view was that, because it owned the vessels, it had the right to determine the necessary insurance for their safety. It considered the manning scale to be part of the premium, and so had to determine manning levels in accordance with safety requirements.
There was a certain logic in the argument that the owners of the vessels should determine the premiums, whether in literal, insurance terms or in manning terms. The two are, in fact, inextricably bound up. I said, "Yes, you own the vessels, and you have a right to determine how much risk you are prepared to take in relation to those vessels. But you do not own the lives of the people who work on them." If a passenger vessel had been


involved, I would have added "and the lives of the passengers." The company, I said, had no right to determine manning levels in a way that put lives in jeopardy.
Our demands are minimal, but I recognise the problems that face my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench in securing a response from the Government that will enhance safety. My demands would have gone much further, but I accept that we are facing one of the most reactionary Governments of my lifetime. Indeed, they are probably the most reactionary Government to have been in office for many years before that.
We have every right to be concerned about the design and manning of vessels. These are issues that the Government can no longer ignore. They cannot be left to those who own and run shipping companies.
Over the years, naval architecture has been an honourable profession. The members of the profession have been concerned with safety and they have applied themselves to enhancing it with diligence and sincerity. Vessels that go to sea must be considered safe, but I am not suggesting that an unsinkable vessel can be designed. The Titanic was considered to be unsinkable until it hit an iceberg. The Bismark was unsinkable until it was caught in a Norwegian fjord. In the foreseeable future, we shall not see an unsinkable ship.
Instead, we must consider what is avoidable and what is not. There is little that we can do about unavoidable accidents. However, when avoidable marine disasters occur, we must examine the Government's legislative response. It is unfortunate that the Government have failed to intervene so far. Instead, they have allowed more and more deregulation to take place. This means that everything is left to market forces, including the safety of crews and passengers.
There is no doubt in my mind that roll-on, roll-off vessels are unsafe in every sense of the word. Those who design them come under pressure from the companies that build them. The vessels are built under the constraints of profit margins, commercial judgments and quick turn-rounds. Those are the main requirements that a designer has to fulfil.
Naval architects and their honourable profession are under pressure to design ships that will meet the standards of their owners, who do not regard as paramount the safety of the crew and the passengers. Their interests lie in profitability and commercial considerations generally.
Safety is a Government responsibility and the Government should intervene. They must understand that roll-on, roll-off vessels have to be modified and that future building must take into account their vulnerability and the possibility of further marine tragedies that will result in loss of life and injury to passengers and crews. If they fail to reach this understanding, none of us has any right, especially Conservative Members, to mouth condolences and shed tears for the families of the bereaved when marine tragedies take place. We must eliminate the cause of these disasters. If we fail to do that, we have no right to carry out a ritual in this place.
The Secretary of State has a clear responsibility to consider the arguments put forward in Committee and on Report. He should recognise that some matters are above commercial or profitable arguments. There is a point

where so-called competition has to be viewed against the backdrop of what effect such a policy has on the safety of crews and passengers on United Kingdom vessels.

Mr. Barry Field: The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) mentioned the withdrawal of the breeches buoy equipment. Had she taken the trouble to consult the coastguard service, she would have realised that it agrees with its withdrawal. I am reliably informed that it has not saved lives in recent years and has been used in anger only once since 1981. The replacement cost of the equipment is about £250,000. Given the frequency with which the equipment is used, it is hardly an effective way to spend taxpayers' money. Indeed, the search and rescue service, especially that based in the north of Scotland, is now operated by the coastguard service.
When my right hon. Friend deals with the point raised by the hon. Lady, will he consider the retention of the 41 mm pistol and rocket with the floating head? It serves a useful purpose as it is a small arms weapon that fires a light line into the surf. It has been used on a number of occasions to rescue people inshore and to put a light line aboad inshore vessels and yachting craft.

Mrs. Ray Michie: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not quite hear what I said, which was that I had heard from the coastguard service, and not just from community councils. It voiced its concern about the withdrawal of that life-saving equipment.

Mr. Field: The professional coastguards in my constituency take the opposite view and welcome the withdrawal of that equipment because it has not been used frequently and does not represent good value for the taxpayers. The search and rescue helicopter service now provide the service that that outdated equipment used to provide.

Mr. Adley: I do not know whether my hon. Friend was present when I spoke—

Mr. Field: No, I was not.

Mr. Adley: In that case, I must inform my hon. Friend that the coastguard training centre is in my constituency, which is not too far from his. My constituents have clearly expressed the view that there was inadequate consultation about the withdrawal of the breeches buoy. There is by no means unanimity among the coastguards around the coast that it should be withdrawn. Its replacement by helicopter would consume such a large percentage of the budget of the coastguard service that it would be virtually incapable of providing a proper service. Perhaps my hon. Friend will join me in asking the Government to provide it with additional funds for the helicopter rescue service.

Mr. Field: I have actually witnessed the firing of the Lager rocket on the breeches buoy. The manufacturers, Schemuli, will only guarantee that rocket to fire into the wind at force 6 and below. Above that, they cannot guarantee that it will reach its destination. I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that the equipment is usually required in above a force 8 wind. The last time that it was used on the Isle of Wight in anger was in Sandown bay, when the wind was above force 8 and the rocket kept returning over the heads of the coastguards firing it. Eventually the crew were rescued by wading ashore the following morning.
I do not believe that the equipment, which has a capability of slightly over half a mile, is relevant to the size of today's ships. In fact, if the large ships were to come ashore in a situation in which a breeches buoy would be required, I do not believe that that equipment would reach them today.

Dr. Godman: I rise in support of the new clauses and amendment (a). I refer first to the questions that have been asked of the Secretary of State about the stability of large vessels, especially ferries. Is his Department satisfied with the stability dynamics of small fishing vessels which have had shelter decks added to them after their construction? It seems to me that that raises some issues to which he should attend.
With regard to new clause 5(b), referring to discussions with representatives of other nations concerning safety at sea, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether any account is paid to the deliberations of the European Community's joint committee into conditions in the sea fishing industry. Is it not the case that from time to time that committee debates issues relating to the occupational safety of fishermen?
I have a great deal of sympathy for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). I was privileged to be a sponsor of the Safety at Sea Act 1986 which was proposed by his predecessor, the then Mr. Albert McQuarrie, now Sir Albert.
If I can catch the attention of the Secretary of State, I should like to ask him a question concerning line 12 of that amendment. My question relates to the carriage of immersion suits on United Kingdom-registered fishing vessels. What progress has his Department made in that important respect? I remind him that the carriage of immersion suits, especially the latest, such as those used by French fishermen, can lead to the saving of lives.
I remind him also of the terrible tragedy that overtook a French trawler that foundered west of St. Kilda in February. He will recall that 27 men went over the side in something of a desperate hurry. My figures may be slightly inaccurate but I believe that about 13 of those men had the time in which to don their immersion suits. Their 13 or 14 colleagues did not have the time to put on their immersion suits and went over the side in shirts and trousers. The 13 men wearing immersion suits all survived immersion in the freezing water. Their comrades all died quite quickly, which was not surprising given the appalling weather conditions. I repeat that the men wearing the immersion suits survived.
The Secretary of State may contradict me, but I believe that French maritime law stipulates that no registered fishing vessel of a certain overall length and above may leave a French port without sufficient immersion suits for all the crew. Is that the case, or is it not? If that is the case for French fishermen, why should it not be the case for fishermen on United Kingdom-registered fishing vessels?
I remind the Secretary of State of the appalling tragedy that overtook the three Hull trawlers in 1968, when 59 men died and one survived—the mate of the Ross Cleveland, Harry Eddom. He was the only man wearing an immersion suit, which he had purchased himself. I do not say that all the other men would have survived the appalling conditions off north-west Iceland in February 1968, but Harry Eddom went over the side in an inflatable

dinghy with two comrades from the crew of his vessel. They, dressed only in vests and trousers, died quickly. Harry Eddom survived that appalling experience for several hours.
What is the likelihood of a similar instruction, which the French industry now accepts without question, being given to the United Kingdom fishing industry? I am not referring to the small vessels—the creel vessels—that one finds in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald). But even boats with two or three crew members should carry immersion suits. That view does not make me popular with fishermen, whether at Scarborough, Whitby or Barrow, but despite the anger that I have aroused by calling for the carriage of immersion suits, I stand by that demand. I moved an amendment to Mr. McQuarrie's Bill, but I withdrew it rather than damage the interests of the Bill. I genuinely believe that some fishermen would be alive today had their vessels carried immersion suits.
Despite the opposition of some fishermen, the Secretary of State must introduce such an instruction. I think I am right to say that it does not require legislation. Such an instruction could be issued to the industry by way of the fishing vessel safety rules. The Secretary of State and his officials must stop pussyfooting round. The instruction must be given to the industry. I know the father of a Scottish fisherman who was drowned, who is now a keen advocate of immersion suits. It is a disgrace that Ministers duck that unpopular decision.
Finally, may I refer to the financial assistance which the catching sector of the industry demands, rightly, that the Government give to meet statutory training requirements? We have heard of the peremptory way, as the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) described it, in which Lord Brabazon treated Bob Allan, the chief executive, and Willie Hay, the president, of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. Similar treatment was meted out to senior members of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations.
The United Kingdom leads other maritime nations in the training of fishermen. It has a good record. The implementation of the training was not welcomed by many fishermen, especially in the inshore sector among share fishermen, but now they are stout defenders of training—

Mr. Aitken: Oh, come on!

Dr. Godman: I shall ignore the malicious comment of the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). This is an important issue for fishermen, and we should be debating it in prime time. He offers his sedentary intervention with his characteristic mixture of dimwittedness and exhuberant malice.
We are discussing extremely important issues. Financial assistance should be given for the training of fisherman, and fishing vessels should carry immersion suits for their crews.

12 midnight

Mr. Macdonald: I should like to lend my support to the new clauses and amendment (a).
New clause 13 relates to safety at sea for fishing vessels and fishermen. I share the dismay of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) at the attitude of the Under-Secretary of State to the reasonable request from


the Scottish Fishing Federation to meet and discuss safety at sea and the implementation of the McQuarrie Act. It is disturbing that the Government would not agree to discuss the matter.
I understand that the Government's attitude is that the McQuarrie Act started as a private Member's Bill and that therefore they do not take any responsibility for it. But it is part of the law of the land. The Government cannot simply wash their hands of the Act's financial implications for the fishing industry, especially the small-scale fishermen in my constituency who are already hard hit by other Government impositions, such as lighthouse dues. It is asking too much to expect fishermen to bear the entire cost of the safety at sea legislation.

Mr. Salmond: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the impasse that has been reached regarding the implementation of the safety at sea training provisions is a direct result of the Government's refusal to offer any public assistance to the industry?

Mr. Macdonald: That is true.
The fishing industry cannot be expected to bear the costs entirely on its shoulders; the Government must step in. The McQuarrie Act is the law of the land and the Government have a duty to implement that law.
When the Secretary of State replies, I hope that he does not repeat the arguments made in Committee—that the ro-ro ferries are entirely safe so long as they do not collide with another ship or sail with the bow doors open. One must distinguish between the immediate cause of accidents that have befallen ro-ro ferries and the factors that have contributed to the gravity of such accidents once they have occurred.
A parallel is presented by inflammable foam furniture. I do not seek to make such a parallel in a light-hearted sense. The Government neglected to solve that problem before it was too late, with similar tragic consequences They have maintained that such furniture is perfectly safe so long as no one drops a match on it. That is exactly the attitude that the Government have adopted to ro-ro ferries: they are safe so long as they are not involved in an accident. When such accidents occur, the very nature of ro-ro ferries makes those accidents much worse than they would be otherwise.
This month, the Royal Institute of Naval Architects said that ro-ro ferries are
unacceptably vulnerable in that there is a likelihood of rapid capsize
once an accident occurs.
In 1983, the Norwegian classification organisation reported that of 243 ro-ro vessels involved in accidents at sea over a 20-year period, 60 per cent. had sunk in less than 10 minutes. That supports our point that the very design of such vessels is unacceptably unsafe. It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to say that if they are not involved in accidents they are safe. They are involved in accidents, particularly in areas such as the English Channel, which is full of shipping.
Ro-ro ferries must be judged not only by how well they sail when nothing happens to them, but by how well they respond in accidents, which are inevitable in waterways such as the Channel.

Mr. Channon: This has been an extremely important debate. I recognise that the issue of safety — of ro-ro

vessels and in other areas—is of deep concern to all hon. Members. So much has been clear from the wide-ranging debate.
I could speak for about an hour on this issue, but I have a feeling that that not might not be appropriate now. I shall try to deal with the essential points that have been raised; if I omit any, I guarantee that I shall carefully study hon. Members' speeches in Hansard and write to them.
Before I come to the main issue in the debate—the safety of ro-ro vessels—I want to speak about two other important matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) and others raised the subject of the coastguard. I shall examine everything he said about that. I share his admiration for the coastguards, and anyone who knows anything of their work will know that they are a wonderful body of men who do the country a great service. I assure my hon. Friend that if I thought there was any question of endangering safety with any of our new measures, I would not have authorised them.
I have already been in touch with my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) about this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch can be assured that I shall examine the points he raised about his constituency.
The figures given me about breeches buoys bear out what my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) said: they have been used only twice in the past five years. I shall write to other hon. Members and to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) about this. The hon. Lady spoke about the difficulties created by the remoteness of her constituency. I hope I shall be able to convince her, as we are convinced, that all our proposed measures for the coastguard represent an improvement, not a deterioration. If I had not thought that, I should not have agreed to the proposals.
A quick word about the training of fishermen, about which the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and other hon. Members spoke. The proposal that the Government should take powers to provide financial assistance towards the training of fishermen was discussed in Committee. The proposals for assistance in the Bill are born of the Government's concern at the sharp decline in the number of merchant seamen being trained and the implications which that has for the number of seafarers likely to be available for service in future in an emergency.
There are already a number of different sources of assistance available for training fishermen—for example, the Sea Fish Industry Authority currently spends about £800,000 a year on training. I would outline some of the other contributions to training to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, but I am sure he knows them well. It was fair enough for him to say that, at the time the Safety At Sea Act 1986 was passed. The Government made it quite clear that the cost of safety training introduced as a result of the Act would have to be met by the industry and not by the taxpayer, and that the Government would not introduce any new regulations unless there was a prior undertaking from the industry that it would meet the cost of the new requirements. That is not, therefore, a great surprise to the industry.
There is still some disagreement in the industry about the scope and content of new training requirements. It is difficult to deal with this until we know the industry's agreed view, and until the industry is in a position to give the necessary undertakings on finance. I undertake to


consult my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who are primarily responsible for fishing matters. I shall make sure that their attention is drawn to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman and of other hon. Members who have spoken about this issue.

Mr. Salmond: Total funding of the mandatory safety requirements under the Safety at Sea Act 1986 would be only about £250,000 a year. In the context of the importance of this matter, does the Minister not feel that funding at this level would be appropriate?

Mr. Channon: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but as I said a few moments ago, and as he said in his speech, the Government's position was made perfectly clear about the Safety at Sea Act 1986. Nothing has changed about that point of principle. I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend what the hon. Gentleman has said about the costs and ensure that the point is carefully studied. I cannot go further than that tonight.
I should like now to deal with the important question of safety and ro-ro ferries. I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said about the importance of the issue and the absolute necessity for it to be taken seriously. I am aware of the views held by all hon. Members about the appalling tragedy of Zeebrugge. I do not think that that is a matter of controversy between us—at least, I hope it is not.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) asked for more Government intervention. With respect, I have been more interventionist during my few months on this front than practically any other Minister in the history of dealing with these matters. I have here a long list of the measures that we have already taken in respect of ferry safety. The list mentions indicator lights, boarding cards, change in the law, draught gauges, loading computers, reinclining and other matters. I shall not read out all of them because hon. Members are aware of them and many answers have been given in the House about this matter. There are also legal requirements on shipowners and managers and others to exercise due diligence and to take responsible steps to ensure safe operation.
Hon. Members asked about inherent stability and the fundamental design of ro-ro ferries. Two major accidents have befallen British registered passenger ro-ro ships since the mid-1950s. They involved the European Gateway and the Herald of Free Enterprise. I think that it is common ground that both accidents resulted not from the design of the ships but from the way in which they were operated.

Mr. Terry Fields: Rubbish.

Mr. Channon: I am surprised that the hon. Member will not accept that point.
It is clear that the Herald of Free Enterprise sank because the bow doors were left open. However, that is not to say that substantial improvement in the design of ro-ro ferries is not possible. In response to Mr. Justice Sheen's report on the Herald of Free Enterprise, a ro-ro research steering committee was set up in my Department under the Surveyor-General. It consists of six qualified naval architects, including the immediate past president of the

Royal Institute of Naval Architects, Professor Caldwell. I have made available more money for research over a three-year period.
Work has so far been done to assess improved standards of residual stability of passenger ships and we shall put that to the International Maritime Organisation next month. We have a project on risk analysis, and some possible design improvements must be considered. For example, longitudinal and transverse bulkheads on the vehicle deck, raising the vehicle deck or adopting unconventional deck arrangements, sponsons and improved water dumping arrangements are being assessed. I shall place a note describing the programme in the Libraries of both Houses.
I have had meetings with all those involved and I understand the views of the general council of the Royal Institute of Naval Architects. My noble Friend had a meeting with the institute earlier this month and there was a great deal of common ground. I think that the only difference between us relates to the perception of the council that technology for preventing capsizes can be put into effect immediately.
There must be a period of assessment. The institute has identified five possible improvements and all five are part of my Department's programme. We have to assess the feasability of these and of other approaches and take rational decisions about which, if any, of the options should be chosen. It would be quite wrong for me to say that they have to be chosen before proper research has taken place.

Mr. Terry Fields: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Channon: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I know that the House wants to get on.

Mr. Fields: The Secretary of State said that all this takes time. Lord Justice Sheen said in his report that the Department of Transport had not acted since the European Gateway disaster in 1983. Why has the Secretary of State done nothing about that?

Mr. Channon: That is not so. I could weary the House, if hon. Members were sufficiently interested, with all that has been done since that incident in 1983. Mr. Justice Sheen made very few criticisms of the Department. The hon. Gentleman is misleading the House when he says that the Department was much criticised in the Sheen report. To save time, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about those important points.
The Government's research programme into fundamental design improvements is similar to the suggestions of the Royal Institute of Naval Architects. I hope that we shall have some results from that research by the end of the year and we shall then have to decide whether it is necessary to use models. The research will go ahead with all urgency and I hope that it will be completed by the end of the year, except possibly for model tests. We shall then review the matter and discuss it with other European Governments.
From time to time, hon. Members say that, if ro-ro ferries have a hole in them, they are in great danger. Of course they are in some danger, but ro-ro ferries are like other ships in that they have to be able to take the so-called prescribed level of damage. That means that they have to be designed to take a gash in the hull, extending above and


below the water line for one tenth of the length of the ship, without capsizing or sinking. Much work has therefore already been done.
Of course, if more severe damage occurs, the ship may capsize or sink, but, with steady improvements in design, we can achieve better survivability. That has been the aim of the Government's research programme and of work in the International Maritime Organisation and other bodies in recent years.
We must put the matter in perspective and make it clear to the House that we are already carrying out a fundamental programme of research into all the points raised by the Royal Institute of Naval Architects and by hon. Members tonight. I should like to assure the House that the Department takes the matter with the utmost seriousness. I am sure that the House will take a continuing interest in the matter, and I shall keep it in touch with our progress.
The Department will set up a marine investigation branch as soon as the Bill is enacted. I shall ensure that it produces an annual report, which will be laid before the House. The House will decide whether it chooses to debate the report.
I cannot accept the new clause because it goes far further than would be reasonable. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) will accept that there are many technical points wrong with the clause. For example, it would be an extremely unusual concept to require an affirmative resolution for the report, but the House will be able to debate the report if it wishes. I shall initiate a report and place a copy in the Library. I am carrying out the fundamental research that the House wants.
In the light of that, I hope that the House will not press the amendment to a Division. If it does, I shall have to ask my hon. Friends to vote against it.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Secretary of State tells us that the new clause contains extraordinary measures, but we are dealing with extraordinary matters—the safety of people at sea, in the light of the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise, and, in the long term, the question of operational safety at sea.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) said that, in his opinion, the Opposition were being a little modest in putting forward these minimal demands. Many of the measures that we are seeking do not require primary legislation in the form of a Bill, but they do require the Government's concentration on these issues. That is why it is important to ensure that safety is constantly at the top of the political agenda.
Secondary legislation can be formulated in Committee on a regular basis. That would include, for example, limitation on hours of work at sea and adequate structural changes to ro-ro ferries. All that can be done by secondary legislation. There is no limitation on the Government doing that. We want to put safety firmly on the political agenda to make sure that no Government, and particularly this Government with their disastrous record on safety, can avoid the political consequences.

Mr. Loyden: I was not criticising my hon. Friends who are Front-Bench spokesmen, because I know the strain under which they work. I was merely pointing out that the demands that are being made to the Secretary of State are limited by what we can extract from him.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend raises an important point about what we can extract from the Government. Therefore, it is a matter of great regret that the Secretary of State has not accepted the need for a continuing debate on safety. The right hon. Gentleman is always vociferous with claims that the Department and the Government insist on the primacy of safety, but his deeds are few. The progress that he claimed was made before the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise was in direct contradiction to the actions and activities of the Department in the years before that event.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) drew attention to certain criticisms. Whatever the Secretary of State may say about this, Lord Justice Sheen criticised his Department during the inquiry into the sinking of the European Gateway. As recently as March last year, a couple of weeks after the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise, the then Secretary of State answered a question about the official inquiry into the capsize of the European Gateway in 1982. He said:
These recommendations have been implemented for all new ships and virtually implemented or are being discussed internationally for existing ships." —[Official Report, 19 March 1987, Vol. 112, c. 568.]
Five years after the sinking of the European Gateway, the matter was being discussed only with regard to older ships. For these matters to go through the Secretary of State's research think tank and then to be discussed in the international forum is not good enough. It is also not good enough that the marine survey department was constantly cut by his predecessors so that they could make savings.

Mr. Barry Field: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, since the terrible sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise, all the offshore ferries working from United Kingdom ports under the United Kingdom flag have been required to rework stability characteristics as a result of the directive from the Department of Transport?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to hear me say that I was fully aware of that, but that does not stop criticism of these ferries by reputable organisations such as the Nautical Institute and the Royal Institute of Naval Architects, which are firmly of the opinion that even these changes of calculations are not sufficient. These recalculations had to be made because of the way in which these ferries were being maloperated by the operators. Even with those recalculations, reputable bodies and experts said that the extent of the instability of the ferries was unacceptable in terms of protection of human lives and safety at sea.
The Secretary of State says that there is continuing research, but that is not satisfactory when there have been reports from expert bodies that things can be done now. Jesse Jackson recently said that if one were in barracuda waters, one would not turn round to ask for a research programme to look into the problem—one would act. The Secretary of State and the Department have failed to act on this issue. That is a major condemnation of the way in which the Government tackle problems.
The Government are irresponsible when it comes to safety, and they have been culpable. Ministers may shake their heads in disagreement, but in recent replies to questions they could not tell me how often roll-on/roll-off ferries were inspected at sea or in port before the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise. They did not have records available; they did not know what inspections had


been conducted. Yet the Government claim that they have a great record on safety and that they are concerned about what happens at sea.
They have given the lie to their claims about safety in answer to parliamentary question after parliamentary question. For example, a written answer from the Minister this week showed that the Herald of Free Enterprise was never inspected while at sea. We know why the ferry sank. The Secretary of State was right, that the primary cause was operational failure. Yet not once during the ship's life did the marine surveyor's department attempt to find out what the ship was like under operational circumstances. It is true that it was inspected in port, but in port there was no way of knowing whether the bow doors would or would not be closed in a routine or non-routine fashion. The Government simply did not make the necessary surveyors available to undertake this important work. That is the record of a Government who claim that they care about safety.
The Secretary of State is right to say that, since the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise, there has been a massive turnround. It would have been fundamentally morally derelict had there not been a rethink. The failure of the Department to rethink matters following the sinking would have shown not only contempt before the tragedy but indifference after it. I will say one thing for the Secretary of State: I do not think that he views human suffering with indifference. Nevertheless, some of the practice that built up in his Department in the past quite simply showed indifference.
The hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. Aitken) made a very reasonable speech. He questioned whether adequate consideration had been given in the present dispute at Dover to ferry manning levels and wondered whether fatigue might be a problem. The hon. Gentleman suggested that seamen might now be operating 72-hour shifts. The reality is a little different. In some cases, they will be operating 168-hour shifts for a period of two weeks with a one-week rest period at the end of it. I submit that that represents a level of employee commitment above and beyond anything that would be accepted in any shore-based job. That will lead to loss of performance, and ultimately a serious risk of tragedy.
While on the subject of fatigue, let me cite the schedule of one chief officer. We had a debate in Committee about the Government's intentions to regulate hours of work. I have information from the schedule of a chief officer on board a very large crude oil carrier—a carrier weighing 270,000 tonnes. Of a total working period of 228 hours, the chief officer concerned worked 176 hours. He had 52 hours rest, including four periods of seven hours each, which were the longest rest periods that he had.
To ask people to work such schedules is totally unacceptable, yet when I raised the matter in Committee, the Minister said that it was not the time to legislate. When he was kind enough to respond by letter to the same point, he said:
as you know, hours of work for seafarers are not specifically regulated at present. My Department did issue for comment in 1982 draft regulations which would have established detailed duty and rest requirements for watchkeepers. There were objections to these proposals (including some from the unions) and they would not as drafted have applied to ferries

(for which alternative arrangements were proposed). We have not abandoned the draft regulations and will continue to keep them under consideration.
Four years after the draft regulations appeared, we still have chief officers, who do a very important, very responsible job with serious implications for safety, undertaking a 228-hour working period with 176 hours of active service. A Government who will not legislate to prevent that are irresponsible in the extreme.
The Secretary of State had an exchange of correspondence with Kerry St. Johnston, the president of the General Council of British Shipping, who asked what the Government intended to do about the cost of modifying or phasing out ro-ro ferries if it proved necessary. The Secretary of State replied:
Perhaps this question, too, is premature until we know what is involved. But I think I would be misleading you if I were to suggest that there was a chance of the Government paying for this. It is the practice, throughout industry and the transport industry in particular, that industrialists and operators themselves must pay the cost of meeting the Government's safety requirements. I see no prospect of departing from this principle in this particular case.
The Secretary of State may take some comfort from my saying that when companies such as P and O are making vast profits, they canot come to the Government with a begging bowl and say that the future of their operations will be jeopardised if the Government do not stump up the money. If, however, the Secretary of State is saying that the Government are not prepared to pay anything to ensure safety at sea, their culpability of the past is multiplied.
We want the new clause because, in the past, progress on safety at sea has been made only after tragedy at sea. We want to establish a vehicle that will enable us to debate safety rationally and without loss of life. It is the Secretary of State and the Government who are not prepared to do that. They are therefore not prepared to guarantee the safety of the travelling public and those who work at sea.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I know that the House wants to come to a conclusion on this matter—I shall not keep it for long.
I came to the Chamber to listen to the debate because, just over one year ago, a most appalling tragedy affected the maritime activity of the nation. It was a source of horror to our European neighbours and no doubt it made world news. It was but chance that the ship did not take less water rather less quickly and go down a mile or two further on in deeper water. Had that happened, there would have been an even greater outcry and it might have been recorded in history as the equivalent—perhaps it is, psychologically—of the Titanic, which still grips the imagination.
As a consumer, I have been disappointed in the debate. This nation is a maritime nation, or it ought to be. We are debating late at night, with a hurried and inadequate reply from the Secretary of State, a matter of supreme importance to the safety of our citizens and the confidence of those who travel across the sea, who include many of us during the summer. I do not believe that the timing of the debate or the manner in which it has been conducted is commensurate with the importance of the topic and the role that the House should play in discussing serious affairs of the nation. I do not blame my hon. Friends or the Secretary of State, because he does not make the timetable.
The nation would expect us to have a much better and higher quality debate than we have had on this very important topic.

Mr. Adley: The hon. Gentleman has not been here long.

Mr. Spearing: I have been here most of the time.

Mr. Barry Field: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Spearing: No. I shall save the time of the House.
The basis of the debate is the age-old one of the adequacy of statute in relation to safety and operating or movement costs. That has been the theme of safety at sea from the time of Samuel Plimsoll. It is also the theme of similar problems, such as flights to and from London City airport and those at King's Cross. I know that the Secretary of State has considered all these problems with sympathy and would-be understanding. To some extent, the technical problems have overtaken him. They could have overtaken any other Secretary of State. I thank him for the courtesy and attention that he has paid. In his reply to this matter, however, he has not understood what I understand to be the fundamental problem.
It is known that the basic design of the vessels is not what it should be and that there is an inherent risk in he way in which they are designed, constructed and operated. If any Conservative Member — including the Ministers on the Front Bench — does not agree with that statement, I should be most grateful if he would rise and contradict what I have said.
It is no good the Secretary of State saying that he has set up a committee to carry out research into the whole problem. We know what the problem is. If there is to be research, it should be research into how that problem is to be solved in an international way. The Secretary of State's efforts must go into seeing how the known and inherent faults in the design of the vessels can be dealt with on an international basis and in such a way that there is no intervention or disequilibrium in the market. That would relate to the way in which Conservative Members think at the moment. As far as we know, there have been no signs of that. I do not believe that the Secretary of State, try as he might, has really understood the nub of the problem.
In conclusion, I express dissatisfaction with the way in which the debate has been conducted, its timing and in the degree to which Conservative Members—some of whom made good speeches — did not give safety at sea the importance due to it. I hope that the Government will arrange future debates on such matters at a time which is better for everyone, and that the Secretary of State will not be constrained and rushed in his reply. If we in Parliament do not take these matters as seriously as the nation does, the nation will not take Parliament as seriously as it ought.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 27, Noes 147.

Division No. 246]
[12.36 am


AYES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Loyden, Eddie


Clay, Bob
McCartney, Ian


Cryer, Bob
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cummings, John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Prescott, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Salmond, Alex


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Skinner, Dennis


Foster, Derek
Spearing, Nigel


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)





Wallace, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilson, Brian
Mr. Allen McKay and


Wise, Mrs Audrey
Mr. Tony Banks.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Knapman, Roger


Alexander, Richard
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Lang, Ian


Allason, Rupert
Latham, Michael


Amos, Alan
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Arbuthnot, James
Lightbown, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Lilley, Peter


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Ashby, David
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Atkinson, David
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Maclean, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Baldry, Tony
Mans, Keith


Batiste, Spencer
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Miller, Hal


Bottomley, Peter
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Bowis, John
Moss, Malcolm


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Nelson, Anthony


Brazier, Julian
Neubert, Michael


Bright, Graham
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Nicholls, Patrick


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Burns, Simon
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Carrington, Matthew
Oppenheim, Phillip


Carttiss, Michael
Page, Richard


Cash, William
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Porter, David (Waveney)


Chope, Christopher
Portillo, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Powell, William (Corby)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Raffan, Keith


Cope, John
Rathbone, Tim


Cran, James
Redwood, John


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Renton, Tim


Curry, David
Riddick, Graham


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Ryder, Richard


Day, Stephen
Sackville, Hon Tom


Dorrell, Stephen
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Dover, Den
Shaw, David (Dover)


Dunn, Bob
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Durant, Tony
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Fallon, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Farr, Sir John
Shersby, Michael


Favell, Tony
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Stanbrook, Ivor


Forman, Nigel
Stern, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Forth, Eric
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Freeman, Roger
Summerson, Hugo


French, Douglas
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Gale, Roger
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Gill, Christopher
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Twinn, Dr Ian


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Haselhurst, Alan
Waller, Gary


Hayward, Robert
Watts, John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Wells, Bowen


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Whitney, Ray


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Widdecombe, Ann


Hunter, Andrew
Wilkinson, John


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Wilshire, David


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Wolfson, Mark






Wood, Timothy
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and



Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.


Tellers for the Noes:

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 12

LICENSING OF FERRY SERVICES

'The Secretary of State shall have power to introduce regulations to require ferry operators plying to and from the United Kingdom ports to be licensed in accordance with such terms and conditions as he may from time to time lay down.'.—[Mr. Adley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Adley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am very conscious that, at this late hour, my hon. Friends, at least, will expect me to be brief, and to try not to repeat any of the arguments already advanced on other clauses.
I tabled the new clause because I feel that the threat of prosecution as outlined in the Bill provides insufficient inducement for the involvement of senior management in ferry safety. I believe that, with a system of licensing, the threat of loss of licence by a major ferry operator would give a far greater guarantee of safety.
The new clause would merely give the Secretary of State powers — along with a possibility for involving the Treasury—to charge substantial fees for the granting of such a licence. I hope that new clause 1, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, will be considered by the Government as a precedent for introducing a full licensing system.
Let me read two sentences from the report of the Sheen inquiry into the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster:
The Court has not heard sufficient evidence to express any firm view upon it, but is conscious that the standards in many other industries have been improved by licensing. The court draws attention to this suggestion and expresses the hope that serious consideration will be given to it.
That is my earnest hope too, and I cannot understand—perhaps my right hon. Friend will enlighten me—why it is considered necessary to license hovercraft and aircraft, but not ferries.
I understand that heretofore the Department's view has been that, as licensing is an international matter, it would be difficult to introduce a licensing system. I cannot accept that argument. International air service agreements show that bilateral licensing is the norm in that mode of transport. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I will be boarding an aeroplane at Gatwick in a few hours to take us to Toulouse, and neither he nor I would wish to contemplate the proposition of an inadequate system of licensing of any aircraft on which we shall be travelling.
The Herald of Free Enterprise disaster was one of the first magnitude. It was an example of gross negligence, but it was an accident. On the other hand, the Horsa affair of Sealink, which attracted perhaps a little less publicity, was in many ways a considerably worse example of unacceptable behaviour by a ferry company, although mercifully there was no loss of life. There was nothing less than a deliberate and wilful decision to disregard safety for profit. The crime was compounded by a farrago of lies about the event which was put out in Sealink's press releases.
I shall not weary the House with quotations from letters that I received at the time from passengers on the Horsa. I shall merely say that the Horsa affair gave a new meaning to "flexilink". In terms of Sealink, we can think of flexiboats with bulging sides, designed to enable as many passengers as possible to cram on regardless of safety. Mr. Sherwood of Sealink is, in my view, nothing more than a spiv. He, singlehandedly, has dragged down the standard of management of the United Kingdom shipping industry. That is one of the reasons why many of us feel that a licensing system is becoming essential.
I understand that there are views about the safety of roll-on/roll-off vessels and doubts as to whether they are ships in the conventional sense. Sir Jeffrey Sterling was quoted in Lloyd's List of 19 December 1987. He said:
We are not in shipping. Shipping is not a business, it is a method.
He described P and 0 as being in the
transport of freight and human beings.
That is an unusual view of the industry. If Sir Jeffrey is in the method business, not the shipping business, that lends additional strength to my call for a licensing system.
I have received a great deal of worrying correspondence. Standards of management in the shipping industry are far too low and the introduction of a licensing system would be a powerful sanction. It would provide the Secretary of State, the Government, the House and the British people with a powerful additional weapon in the armoury of safety enforcement.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I wish to associate the Opposition with the remarks of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley). The hon. Gentleman rightly drew the attention of the House to the Horsa, and I remember him saying at the time of that disaster that there should be a method of licensing and revocation of licences. I remember also that I supported that concept. In any equivalent form of international transport, it is inconceivable that there would be no form of licensing. If some of the practices that have been revealed over the past 12 months in the shipping industry had been found to take place in the aviation industry, for example, licences would have been revoked.
It has been said, although I do not necessarily agree, that if we institute some form of safety regime specifically for British-based or owned ferries, that could result in an unfair competitive disadvantage to British ferries and an advantage to foreign ferries. If there were a system of licensing, anyone who travelled to United Kingdom ports would be subject to that authority and to the potential revocation of his licence. There is much to recommend such regulation, and I shall listen with considerable interest to the Minister's response. I urge him seriously to consider accepting that helpful suggestion.

Mr. David Mitchell: The Government have given very careful consideration to this proposal, but have concluded that there would be no great benefits from, and quite severe problems in, introducing such a system.
Perhaps the most appealing argument is by analogy with other modes of transport — public service vehicle operation or, especially, aviation. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) mentioned that. The analogy does not really stand up to close examination. Licensing of air operators is used, first, as a means of economic regulation. That does not apply in shipping where, thankfully, there is an open market.
Secondly, it is used to ensure that the operator has the appropriate technical facilities and personnel to ensure that his aircraft can be maintained and operated safely. That is not really a problem with ships, whose safety does not depend, crucially, on the reliability of masses of technically complex equipment, and there is no evidence that the reliability of such equipment is a major factor in shipping accidents. Safety at sea depends much more, in fact, on the sensible and conscientious handling of the ship by its qualified officers and, up to a point, of its shore management. Thirdly, licensing of air and coach operators allows their financial standing to be checked, but that is not a significant factor in ferry operations.
The Herald families have suggested that a threat to withhold or suspend a licence might be a more effective deterrent against misbehaviour than a threat to prosecute, and my hon. Friend took a similar view. But that is really rather doubtful. Any Minister who sought to withhold a ship operator's licence would very quickly be taken to court for injunctive relief to be granted and the operator would continue to operate until the case against him was proved. In short, nothing less than criminal failings would allow a suspension to be upheld, and if criminality could be proved, prosecution would be available.
Clauses 29 and 30 provide for fines of £50,000 on summary convictions, two years in prison and unlimited fines on indictment. Clause 46 provides for the personal liability of the directors if they have consented to or connived at a breach. On the basis of that information, I do not think that the House would wish to accept the new clause.
I remind the House that shipping is an international business. To impose a licensing requirement, when one does not exist in other countries to which ferries sail, would simply be a further incentive to operators to flag out.
For those reasons, I cannot recommend the new clause to the House.

Mr. Adley: In view of what my hon. Friend has said and because of the lateness of the hour, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

BRITISH SHIPS

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 2, line 15, at end insert—
`(aa) the ship is registered in the United Kingdom in pursuance of an Order in Council under section 80 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1906 (Goverment ships); or'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House if we also consider Government amendments Nos. 17, 18, 56, 7, 19 to 29, 44 to 48, 54, 49, 30, 31, 50, 51, 32 to 34, 15, and 35 to 38.

1 am

Mr. Mitchell: All these amendments are technical and designed to clarify the operation of the Bill. I think that the House will find it perfectly acceptable to take them en bloc.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 17, in page 2, line 15, at end insert—

`(ab) the ship is a fishing vessel within the meaning of Part II of the Act which is eligible to he registered under that Part of that Act by virtue of section 13 below, but—

(i) is excluded from registration under that Part of that Act by regulations made under section 12 below, and
(ii) is not registered under the law of any country outside the United Kingdom; or'. — [Mr. Channon]

Clause 4

ENTITLEMENT TO REGISTRATION UNDER PART I OF 1894 ACT

Amendments made: No. 56, in page 4, line 2, at end insert—
'(5A) A ship shall, in accordance with section 12(2)(a) below, not be entitled to be registered if it is a fishing vessel within the meaning of Part II.'.
No. 57, in page 4, line 17 leave out from `ships)' to end of line 19. —[Mr. Channon]

Clause 5

REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 5, line 9, leave out from 'authorised' to 'under' in line 10 and insert
',by virtue of any statutory provision, to be served for the purpose of the institution of, or otherwise in connection with, proceedings for an offence'.
No. 20, in page 5, line 12, leave out
`be treated as duly served on the owner'
and insert
`,where the person to be served is the owner of a registered ship, be treated as duly served on him'.
No. 21, in page 5, line 19, leave out subsection (6). —[Mr. Channon.]

Clause 6

REFUSAL OF REGISTRATION

Amendments made: No. 22, in page 5, line 42, leave out from 'notice,' to 'not' in line 45 and insert
`give to registrars of British ships generally a direction requiring them'.
No. 23, in page 6, line 3, leave out from 'may' to 'is' in line 5 and insert
`give to registrars of British ships generally a direction requiring them not to register the ship if he'. —[Mr. Channon.]

Clause 7

POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO DIRECT REMOVAL FROM THE REGISTER

Amendment made: No. 24, in page 6, line 13, leave out
`require the owner of the ship'
and insert
`served on—

(a) the owner of the ship, or
(b) any representative person for the time being appointed in relation to the ship, require that person'. —[Mr. Channon.]

Schedule 1

AMENDMENTS OF PART I OF MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT 1894

Amendments made: No. 2, in page 45, line 35, at end insert—
' (vi) In the case of a ship which is for the time being registered under the law of any country outside the United Kingdom, a declaration that, if the ship is still so registered at the time when it becomes registered under this Part of this Act, he will take all reasonable steps to secure the termination of the ship's registration under the law of that country.'.
No. 43, in page 46, leave out lines 35 to 39 and insert—

`(i) for the words from "ceasing" to "every owner" substitute "in the event of such a ship—

(a) ceasing to be entitled to be registered (whether because a majority interest in the ship is no longer owned by persons qualified to be owners of British ships or for any other reason), or
(b) becoming registered otherwise than under this Part of this Act in the United Kingdom,

every registered owner", and
(ii) for the words from "book and" onwards substitute "and the registry of the ship shall terminate forthwith.";'.

No. 44, in page 47, line 1, leave out
'in the manner provided by subsection (1) of this section'.
No. 45, in page 47, line 8, leave out
`and in any such case'
and insert—
'(5) Where the registry of a ship terminates by reason of—

(a) any notice given in pursuance of subsection (4) of this section, or
(b) any direction given by the Secretary of State under section 7(5) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 (power to direct removal from register in certain cases),'.

No. 46, in page 47, line 10, after 'notice' insert 'or direction'.
No. 47, in page 47, line 11, at end insert—
'(6) Where the registry of a ship terminates—

(a) under subsection (1) or (4) of this section, or
(b) as mentioned in subsection (5)(b) of this section, the termination of its registry shall not affect any entry made in the register so far as relating to any undischarged registered mortgage, or any existing certificate of mortgage, of that ship or of any share in it.

(7) Subsection (6) of this section shall not apply to an entry in the register in a case where—

(a) the mortgage in question becomes registered under Part II of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, or
(b) the registrar is satisfied that every person appearing on the register to be interested as a mortgagee under the mortgage in question has consented to the entry ceasing to have effect.".'

No. 3, in page 50, line 19, at end insert—
'(3A) The registrar of the former port of registry shall, on being notified by the registrar of the new port of registry of the grant of the new certificate of registry, terminate the registration of the ship in his register.'.
No. 4, in page 50, line 46, at end insert—
`(subject to subsection (4) of this section)'.
No. 5, in page 50, line 49, leave out
`(subject to subsection (4))'.
No. 6, in page 50, line 54, at end insert—
'(3A) The registrar of the new port of registry shall notify the registrar of the former port of registry of the grant of the new certificate of registry.'. —[Mr. Channon.]

Clause 12

SEPARATE REGISTRATION OF FISHING VESSELS

Amendment made: No. 58, in page 10, line 7, at end insert—
'(4A) Where a fishing vessel becomes registered under this Part at a time when it is already registered under the law of any country outside the United Kingdom, the owner of the vessel shall take all reasonable steps to secure the termination of the vessel's registration under the law of that country.
(4B) Any person who contravenes subsection (4A) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the third level on the standard scale.'. —[Mr. Channon.]

Schedule 2

REGISTRATION OF FISHING VESSELS: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 56, line 24, at end insert—

'Construction of references in other enactments to fishing vessels excluded from registration
8. References in any statutory provision (apart from section 2(1)(ab)) to fishing vessels excluded from registration by regulations under section 12 shall be construed as references to fishing vessels which, being eligible to be registered under this Part by virtue of section 13, are excluded from registration by such regulations (and are not registered under the law of any country outside the United Kingdom).'. —[Mr. Channon.]

Clause 13

ELIGIBILITY FOR REGISTRATION AS BRITISH FISHING VESSEL

Amendments made: No. 30, in page 11, line 35, after `means', insert '(a)'.
No. 31, in page 11, line 36, after 'Kingdom', insert—', or
(b) a local authority in the United Kingdom'. —[Mr. Channon.]

Schedule 3

MORTGAGES OF REGISTERED FISHING VESSELS

Interpretation

Amendments made: No. 50, in page 58, line 3, leave out
`when the mortgage money has become'
and insert
'if the mortgage money or any part of it is'.
No. 51, in page 58, line 29, at end insert—

'Transfer of mortgages from one system of registration to another

9. —(1) Regulations may provide—

(a) for the transfer to the register of undischarged mortgages that have been registered under Part I of the 1894 Act and affect ships registered under that Part of that Act which become registered vessels otherwise than in pursuance of paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to this Act; and
(b) for any provisions of this Part to have effect in relation to any such mortgages, or in relation to any mortgages transferred in pursuance of paragraph 4 of that Schedule, subject to such modifications as may be specified in the regulations.
(2) Regulations may also provide—

(a) for the transfer to registers kept under Part I of the 1894 Act of undischarged registered mortgages affecting registered vessels which become ships registered under that Part of that Act; and


(b) for any provisions of that Part of that Act to have effect in relation to any such mortgages subject to such modifications as may be specified in the regulations.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraphs (1) and (2)—

(a) regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) may make provision, in connection with the transfer of mortgages in pursuance of that sub-paragraph, for the transmission of information relating to such mortgages which is recorded in registers kept under Part I of the 1894 Act, and for the recording of such information in the register kept under this Part; and
(b) regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) may make corresponding provision, in connection with the transfer of mortgages in pursuance of that sub-paragraph, for the transmission and recording of information relating to such mortgages which is recorded in the register kept under this Part.

(4) In this paragraph "regulations" means regulations made under section 12.'. —[Mr. Channon.]

Clause 21

OFFENCES RELATING TO, AND LIABILITIES OF, UNREGISTERED FISHING VESSELS

Amendments made: No. 32, in page 16, line 15, at end insert—
'(2A) Subsection (1) also applies to any fishing vessel which (notwithstanding that it is not entitled to be so registered) is for the time being registered in the United Kingdom under Part I of the 1894 Act or section 5 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1983 (registration of small ships).'.
No. 33, in page 16, line 26, leave out 'registered under this Part' and insert
'a British ship and is not registered under the law of any country outside the United Kingdom'.
No. 34, in page 16, line 27, leave out 'so registered' and insert 'registered under this Part'. —[Mr. Channon.]

Clause 29

OWNER AND MASTER LIABLE IN RESPECT OF DANGEROUSLY UNSAFE SHIP

Amendments made: No. 15, in page 22, line 11, after `ought', insert 'reasonably'.
No. 35, in page 22, line 35, leave out from 'sea' to end of line 36 and insert
`shall, in a case where the service for which a ship is intended consists of going on voyages or excursions that do not involve going to sea, be construed as a reference to going on such a voyage or excursion.'. —[Mr. Channon.]

Mr. Terry Fields: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 22, line 41, at end insert
`The provisions of this section and of sections 30 and 31 below shall apply to all cases where, after 1st January 1987, investigators of marine accidents appointed by the Secretary of State have found owners or masters liable as specified in those sections'.
I am grateful to the tenth of our parliamentary number who have supported this amendment, although they do not all appear on the Order Paper. I want to make it clear from the start that we are dealing with retrospective legislation. This is an important matter, and if I had not wanted to appear serious about it, I would not have tabled the amendment. I do not move the amendment vindictively. I know that I am not Sir Jeffrey Sterling or of his ilk, but I know people who have lost loved ones in the terrible disasters of the past 12 to 18 months, and I know people who are constantly in fear of their loved ones

going to sea. Especially now, with the horror stories of the ro-ro ferries, I am conscious of the responsibility that we have.
I know that people will raise eyebrows and say that restrospective legislation is just not on, but in a brief that I have received from the Library, I note that the Acts of Parliament (Commencement) A.ct 1793 in no way prevents Parliament from making an Act retrospective if the intention to do so is apparent. The intention of this amendment to do so is apparent. It is stated:
'It is obviously competent for the legislature, in its wisdom, to make the provisions of an Act of Parliament retrospective,' said Lord Ashbourne in Smith v. Callander4 2 and 'No one denies,' said Dr. Lushington in The Ironsities,4 3 `the competency of the legislature to pass retrospective statutes if they think fit,4 4 and many times they have done so.'
On eight occasions since 1980, the Government have introduced retrospective legislation, such as the National Health Service (Invalid Direction) Act 1980, the Employment Act 1982, the London Regional Transport (Amendment) Act 1985, the Housing and Planning Act 1986, the Rate Support Grants Act 1986, the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987, the Local Government Finance Act 1987, and the Local Government Finance Bill 1987–88, clause 113.
Those are eight instances of the Government using retrospective legislation. I am seeking to use retrospective legislation tonight on behalf of people who lost members of their families in the Zeebrugge disaster. As my amendment states, it goes back to 1 January 1987, which would take in the Zeebrugge disaster, and take those people within the province of other sections of the Bill to which we have already agreed tonight.
In Committee we tried to differentiate between the master's liability and that of the owners, but our choice has been limited because of the stonewalling of the Government. To prove that this legislation is necessary, the amendment states:
the investigators of marine accidents appointed by the Secretary of State have found owners or masters liable as specified in those sections.
We are talking about criminal negligence, unsafe practices of the vessels and allowing unsafe vessels to go to sea. It is still the contention of Opposition Members —despite what the Minister, the Secretary of State and others have said — that the ro-ro ferries are inherently unstable. In that respect, the Sheen report states:
But a full investigation into the circumstances of the disaster leads inexorably to the conclusion that the underlying or cardinal faults lay higher up in the Company"—
not with the lower ranks of the company, but higher up.
The Board of Directors did not appreciate their responsibility for the safe management of their ships. They did not apply their minds to the question: What orders should be given for the safety of our ships? The directors did not have any proper comprehension of what their duties were. There appears to have been a lack of thought about the way in which the HERALD ought to have been organised for the Dover/Zeebrugge run. All concerned in management, from the members of the Board of Directors down to the junior superintendents, were guilty of fault in that all must be regarded as sharing responsibility for the failure of management. From top to bottom the body corporate was infected with the disease of sloppiness.
The failure on the part of the shore management to give proper and clear directions was a contributory cause of the disaster. This is a serious finding which must be explained in some detail.
On 18 March 1986, there was a meeting between senior masters and management, at which Mr. Develin took the


chair. One topic discussed was the recognition of the chief officer as head of department and the roles of the maintenance master and chief officer. Mr. Develin said that, although he was still considering writing definitions of the different roles, he thought that
it was more preferable not to define the roles but to allow them to evolve.
Mr. Justice Sheen said:
It was the failure to give clear orders about the duties of the Officers on the Zeebrugge run which contributed so greatly to the causes of this disaster … The Board of Directors must accept a heavy responsibility for their lamentable lack of directions. Individually and collectively they lacked a sense of responsibility. This left what Mr. Owen so aptly described as, 'a vacuum at the centre' … It is also right to say that the Company has recognised its causative faults. On the eighth day of this Investigation Mr. Clarke"—
he was a representative of the company—
said 'Townsend Car Ferries recognise that long before the 6th March 1987 both their sea and shore staff should have given proper consideration to the adequacy of the whole system relating to the closing of doors on this class of ship with their clam doors.'
The Guardian of 28 and 29 April, reporting from the inquiry, said that there were clear signs of the culpability of the company in its running of the ferry service and its inactivity in correcting some of the practices that had come to light during the previous decade.
I wish to deal with three factors. The first is the overloading with passengers, which is criminal negligence on the part of the company. It became apparent from the documents given in evidence to the inquiry that seven different masters had found that, from time to time, their ships were carrying passengers substantially in excess of the permitted number.
The documents revealed that the senior master of the Pride of Free Enterprise, Captain Blowers, sent a memorandum dated not 1987 or 1986 but 16 August 1982, to Mr. A. P. Young, the operations director, with a copy to Mr. Develin. The relevant passages of the memorandum state that on 28 July 1982 there were 250 passengers over the prescribed limit; on 6 August 1982, there were 40 passengers over the limit; on 8 August 1982, there were 100 passengers too many; and on 18 August 1982 there were 171 passengers too many.
That was reported consistently to the company. It consistently broke the law. The overloading of passengers and vehicles on the ferry contributed to the loss of the vessel. Year after year, reports were given to the company, but no action was taken. Through 1982, 1983 and 1984 the inadequacies of the system were reported to the company.
Matters reached such a stage that in 1986, an officer reporting on passenger numbers said :
This total is way over the life-saving capacity of the vessel. The fine on the Master for this offence is £50,000 and probably confiscation of certificate. May I please know what steps the company intend to take to protect my career from the mistakes of this nature.
Everyone in the company knew about the overloading of passengers. It was part and parcel of the ethics of Townsend Thoresen, like a latter-day railway service in India, pushing the people on and making as much profit as possible no matter how great the risk to the passengers and crew.
In 1986, in reply to Captain Stoker, Mr. Young, for the company, said:

I accept that the present method of obtaining the correct number of passengers boarding vessels is liable to error but I feel that everyone must accept that, whatever system is operated, there will always be the possibility of human error".
Reports continued to flood in in 1986 and 1987. Everyone was informing the company of what was wrong. At the end of the day, the court reluctantly had to conclude:
Mr. Young made no proper or sincere effort to solve the problem. The Court takes a most serious view of the fact that so many of the Company's ferries were carrying an excessive number of passengers on so many occasions.
Townsend Thoresen and P and O stand condemned of overloading their vessels with passengers. We believe that the Sheen report suggests criminality on their part and Parliament has a responsibility to act on that.
Indicator lights would have given clear warning that the bow doors on the Herald of Free Enterprise were not closed. Indicator lights were not a new feature, but were part and parcel of an ongoing programme. As far back as 1983 people knew about the defect, but the company did nothing about it.
On 28 June 1985 Captain Blowers of the Pride sent a sensible memorandum to Mr. Develin of the company. The relevant part of it stated:
In the hope that there might be one or two ideas worthy of consideration I am forwarding some points that have been suggested on this ship and with reference to any future new-building programme. Many of the items are mentioned because of the excessive amounts of maintenance, time and money spent on them.
He spoke about a mimic panel:
There is no indication on the bridge as to whether the most important watertight doors are closed or not. That is the bow or stern doors. With the very short distance between the berth and the open sea on both sides of the channel this can be a problem if the operator is delayed or having problems with closing the doors. Indicator lights on the very excellent mimic panel could enable the bridge team to monitor the situation in such circumstances.
Since the disaster, the Secretary of State has come to the House and said that action has been taken in that regard. We applaud that, but the company knew about it since 1983 and did nothing about it. Therefore, in respect of the Herald of Free Enterprise, the company should be charged with criminal negligence.
On 9 October 1986, Captain de Ste Croix sent the following memorandum to the senior electrical officer:
Another incident has occurred to remind me of my request of some time ago for bridge indication of the position of the bow and stern watertight doors. I still feel that although it is the duty of a crew member to check the position of the doors visually prior to proceeding to sea, it is so important to the safety of the ship that they are closed that we should have bridge indication.
The reports were sent in and passed round from one member of management to another. At the end of the day those reports came to nothing. Mr. Develin did not appreciate the importance of the reported incidents and dismissed them as exaggeration on the part of those officers and crew members who reported such inadequacies.
Another important consideration is ascertaining the draughts of the ships and their ballast. On the stability of the vessels, the Sheen report states:
Mr. Develin did not appreciate that the stability of the Herald could be significantly affected if the ship was trimmed by the head. Mr. Develin is a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects and has been a Government Marine Surveyor in Hong Kong. Accordingly he should have appreciated this. Whether the ship had sailed overloaded


before the 6th March 1987 is not known, but it seems likely …. In subsequent answers Mr. Develin made it clear that he thought that every complaint was an exaggeration.
In reply to a further question about masters taking ships out in an unstable condition, Mr. Develin said:
If he was that concerned he would not have sailed.
He washed his hands of responsibility despite requests, and information about the bad practices. He took no action and the company again stands condemned.
1.15 am
It is now necessary to go back in time briefly. In 1982 the passenger ferry European Gateway, which was also owned by the company, capsized after a collision off Harwich. Following that casualty, the company instituted an investigation into passenger safety. As a result of that investigation, on 10 February 1983, Captain Martin sent a report to Mr. Develin. That report was seen by Mr. Ayres. It begins with the words:
The Company and ships' Masters could be considered negligent on the following points …

(a) the ship's draught is not read before sailing, and the draught entered into the Official Log Book is completely erroneous;
(b) It is not standard practice to inform the Master of his passenger figure before sailing.
(The written comment was 'system informs Master, who often does not agree the truth of the information.')
(c) The tonnage of cargo is not declared to the Master before sailing.
(d) Full speed is maintained in dense fog."

All those features were continually reported to the company but it did nothing about them. Of course, its inactivity over the years was shielded by the Government.
Mr. Ayres was subjected to 10 questions by the inquiry. The final one was:
Would it be unfair of me to suggest that your investigation was pretty superficial?
to which he replied:
With hindsight it can be said.
Mr. Ayres may be a competent Naval Architect,
Mr. Justice Sheen said,
but the Court formed the view that he did not carry out his managerial duties, whatever they may have been.
The report said that even the tragic disaster of the Gateway did not result in any immediate improvement. On 7 May 1987, Mr. A. P. Young sent a memorandum to Mr. A. Black, who is a director of P and O, in which he said:
Shore loading personnel expect ships' officers to advise if actual ship sinkage is ahead of estimated cargo tonnages. At this stage, the loading personnel will decide the shut-off priorities.
In other words, the master is aboard his ship, passengers and vehicles are pouring on to it, the figures are being fiddled and the weight coming on is uncontrolled. The log is false, the amount of water on board unknown.
Later, the masters and those whom they represented applied to have an engine installed to pump out water from the ballast tanks, to make the ship more stable:
Mr. Develin was asked whether he thought the suggestion made by Mr. Crone that a powerful pump should be installed was a good idea or a bad idea. He said that he did not think he gave it much thought after having decided that it was not a safety matter. He handed it over as a technical project to Mr. Ridley. In due course an estimate was obtained for the installation of a pump at a cost of £25,000. This cost was regarded by the Company as prohibitive".
The pump was needed because the ships are given such tight turnround times between ports. It is known that ferries go out to sea cutting into the water because of the excess ballast. With such a pump on board, they could

have drained off the water from the ballast tanks quickly, but profits come before people's lives and again the company stands condemned for its inactivity.
Townsend Thoresen Car Ferries Ltd., at all levels from the board of directors down through managers and the marine department to junior superintendents, stands condemned in the Sheen report as criminally guilty. So I submit that the investigators of marine accidents appointed by the Secretary of State have found the owners of these vessels liable as specified in clauses 29, 30 and 31. If justice is to be done in the case of the 200 people who died on the Herald of Free Enterprise and for their families, who have just celebrated—if that is the word—the first anniversary of the deaths of their loved ones, we have a duty and responsibility to see it carried out.
As I have said, it is not unusual to introduce retrospective legislation. If the Government are sincere about righting the wrong that has been done in this case, they will support us by accepting the amendment and introducing retrospective legislation in respect of clauses 29, 30 and 31.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I shall be brief. I have some sympathy for my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) on the issue that he raises. Like every hon. Member, I was clearly shocked not only by the manner of the sinking of the Herald and the human tragedy that that involved, but by the comments that were made at the Sheen inquiry about which my hon. Friend has spoken. The company had almost no care whatever for the safety of those who were in its charge.
Prosecutions may be pending, but it is quite likely that those who were ultimately responsible — the senior managers of the company—are likely to escape penalty. That is particularly galling in the light of the letter written by P and O to those involved in the tragedy. The company advised them that they were not obliged to speak to the police who were inquiring into the whole affair and into whether criminal prosecutions were possible. Obviously, such prosecutions might have been against senior management in the company.
That letter was self-serving, and it is interesting to contrast it with the advice of the National Union of Seamen which has recently been pilloried for its actions. Its advice to its members was that they should co-operate with the police, and, if they wanted legal representation, the union would provide it. It is worth making the comparison between the two approaches.
It is on record how I have condemned the company for seeking to frustrate proper action by the police who were investigating the events leading up to the Herald disaster. For those reasons, it is difficult to resist the amendment. The traditional argument against it is that the House has an aversion to retrospective legislation, but during the lifetime of this Parliament the Government have passed such legislation, particularly against local government.
The Government have sought to act retrospectively and have brought in retrospective legislation. Where necessary, they have changed the rules in such a way as to make sure that what they intended is brought into line with reality. They did that by changing the law and the penalties in relation to local government in a way that has damaged the interests of my constituents both as ratepayers and as consumers of local government services. If they are prepared retrospectively to damage the interests of the people that I represent, who are generally quite poor, I can


think of no reason why, on balance, retrospective legislation should not be used to deal with those whose contempt for people in their charge was such that ultimately it led to their deaths. For those reasons, the amendment has a great deal to commend it.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government do not take a principled view against retrospective legislation? That is because they are, for example, introducing legislation of a retrospective nature to allow local authorities to charge administration fees against superannuation funds instead of against ratepayers. The instrument that will apply this will be retrospective to 1986, so the Government do not oppose retrospection in principle.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend makes a valid point which the Minister should take on board. It is almost certain that my hon. Friend has just destroyed the main thrust of the Minister's speech. The interesting point is that in this case my hon. Friend the Member for Broadgreen wants retrospection only to 1987. We are told that the Government are quite happy to refer matters back to 1986.

Mr. Wallace: I am following the hon. Gentleman's interesting argument. Does he recognise any distinction between retrospection in civil law and retrospection in criminal law?

Mr. Lloyd: I am sure that there is a very valuable point to be made about that. In some senses, retrospection in civil law has less to commend it than retrospection in criminal law. That may not be the answer that the hon. Gentleman wanted, but I am not sure whether this is a matter of absolute principle if the process of the court is at least to recognise a moral or an acceptable balance. As I am not a lawyer, I might be persuaded otherwise on another occasion. I do not think that I recognise any major difference. I hope that the Minister can satisfy the House in the context of my hon. Friend's remarks.

Mr. David Mitchell: I wish to make one brief point before I deal with the substance of the amendment. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) asserted that this type of ro-ro vessel is inherently unstable. It is not unstable, provided that it is watertight. It is important that the House should recognise that it is a different situation if one of those vessels, which, apart from this tragedy, have had a good safety record, goes to sea without the doors being closed and therefore is not watertight. It is a matter of the management of the vessel, but I shall not go into further detail now.
The amendment is not acceptable to the Government. It aims to tighten the criminal law retrospectively. That would be abhorrent in a democratic country, where it is a fundamental principle that people should be found guilty only under the criminal law as it applied when the offence was committed.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) referred to restrospection, but none of the legislation to which he and the hon. Member for Broadgreen referred involves criminal acts. The amendment would seek to make that which was lawful at the time criminal, if applied retrospectively. The hon. Member for Bradford, South will realise that that makes a considerable difference to the case.
The hon. Member for Broadgreen read out large chunks from the Sheen report. All the matters in the report are now with the Director of Public Prosecutions, whose attention was drawn to the formal inquiry report by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last autumn.
There is a principle at stake here. I invite the House without any hesitation to reject the suggestion that we should apply the criminal law retrospectively.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 11, Noes 126.

Division No. 247]
[1.27 am


AYES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Salmond, Alex


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Skinner, Dennis


Cryer, Bob
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Cunliffe, Lawrence



Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Loyden, Eddie
Mr. Bill Michie and


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Mr. Terry Fields.


Prescott, John



NOES


Alexander, Richard
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Amess, David
Haselhurst, Alan


Amos, Alan
Hayward, Robert


Arbuthnot, James
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hunter, Andrew


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Ashby, David
Knapman, Roger


Atkinson, David
Lang, Ian


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Latham, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Batiste, Spencer
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Lightbown, David


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lilley, Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Bottomley, Peter
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Maclean, David


Bowis, John
McLoughlin, Patrick


Brazier, Julian
Mans, Keith


Bright, Graham
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Britten, Rt Hon Leon
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Burns, Simon
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Carrington, Matthew
Miller, Hal


Cash, William
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Chope, Christopher
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Moss, Malcolm


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Nelson, Anthony


Cope, John
Neubert, Michael


Cran, James
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Nicholls, Patrick


Curry, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Day, Stephen
Page, Richard


Dorrell, Stephen
Porter, David (Waveney)


Dover, Den
Powell, William (Corby)


Dunn, Bob
Raffan, Keith


Durant, Tony
Rathbone, Tim


Fallon, Michael
Renton, Tim


Favell, Tony
Riddick, Graham


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Forman, Nigel
Ryder, Richard


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Freeman, Roger
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


French, Douglas
Shaw, David (Dover)


Gale, Roger
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Gill, Christopher
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)






Stanbrook, Ivor
Wallace, James


Stern, Michael
Waller, Gary


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Watts, John


Summerson, Hugo
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Mr. Alan Howarth.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 30

OWNER LIABLE FOR UNSAFE OPERATION OF SHIP

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 23, line 1, leave out from beginning to second 'and' in line 7.—[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Clause 32

INVESTIGATION OF MARINE ACCIDENTS

Amendment made: No. 9, in page 26, leave out lines 16 to 18.—[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Clause 35

AMENDMENTS OF COAST PROTECTION ACT 1949 RELATING TO SAFETY OF NAVIGATION

Amendments made: No. 39, in page 30, line 6, leave out from 'condition' to 'his' in line 7 and insert
`subject to which the Secretary of State has given'.
No. 40, in page 30, line 13, after 'any', insert `other'.
No. 41, in page 30, leave out lines 16 to 22 and insert—
'(c) may, if the condition relates—

(i) to the provision of any lights, signals or other aids to navigation, or
(ii) to the stationing of guard ships in the vicinity of the works in question or to the taking of any other measures for the purpose of, or in connection with, controlling the movements of ships in the vicinity of those works,

be varied by the Secretary of State in the interests of the safety of navigation (whether or not the operation has been completed) in such manner as he thinks fit for the purpose of enhancing the effectiveness of any such aids or measures as are mentioned in paragraph (i) or (ii) above; and'.
No. 42, in page 30, line 41, at end insert—
`(5A) After section 36 insert—

"Imposition by Secretary of State of safety requirements in cases of emergency.

36A. — (1) Where at any time after the Secretary of State has given his consent for an operation falling within section 34(1)(a) of this Act ("the relevant consent"), it appears to him—

(a) that any danger to navigation has arisen by reason of—

(i) any substantial damage to any works to which that consent relates, or
(ii) any other substantial and unforeseen change in the state or position of any such works, and

(b) that it is urgently necessary to do so in the interests of the safety of navigation,

he may, by notice served on the person to whom the consent was given, impose on that person such requirements as he thinks fit with respect to any of the matters referred to in subsection (2) below.

(2) Those matters are—

(a) the provision on, in the vicinity of, the works in question of any lights, signals or other aids to navigation, and
(b) the stationing of guard ships in the vicinity of those works.

(3) Where the person on whom a notice is served under subsection (1) above fails to comply with any requirements of the notice within the period of 24 hours beginning with the time when it is served on him or as soon after the end of that period as is reasonably practicable, the Secretary of State may make such arrangements as he thinks fit for the purpose of securing that those requirements are implemented.
(4) Where under subsection (3) above the Secretary of State makes any such arrangements, he shall be entitled to recover the cost, as certified by him, of making those arrangements from such one or more of the following, namely—

(a) the person to whom the relevant consent was given, and
(b) any other person or persons who is or are, in accordance with section 34(4A)(b) of this Act, bound by any condition subject to which that consent was given,

as he thinks fit.
(5) Once the requirements of a notice under subsection (1) above have been complied with by the person on whom it was served or implemented in accordance with arrangements made by the Secretary of State under subsection (3) above, those requirements shall, subject to subsection (6) below, be treated for the purposes of this Part of this Act as conditions subject to which the relevant consent was given.
(6) Section 34(4A)(a) and (d) of this Act shall not apply to any such requirements; but if it appears to the Secretary of State (whether on the application of any person or otherwise) that the circumstances giving rise to the urgent necessity for the imposition of the requirements no longer exist, he shall revoke them by notice served on the person to whom the relevant consent was given.
(7) Where the Secretary of State has served a notice under subsection (1) above in respect of any particular circumstances, subsection (5) above shall not preclude him from serving a further notice under subsection (1) in respect of those circumstances.
(8) A notice may be served by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above whether or not—

(a) the operation in question has been completed, or
(b) any condition was imposed by him, on giving the relevant consent, with respect to any of the matters referred to in subsection (2) above.".'. —[Mr. David Mitchell]

Schedule 5

MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS OF MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS

MERCHANT SHIPPING LAW AMENDMENT ACT 1853 (c. 131)

Amendment made: No. 52., in page 69, line 45, at end insert—
`2A. At the end of section 546 (salvage of cargo or wreck) add—
(2) In this section 'tidal water' means—

(a) any waters within the ebb and flow of the tide at ordinary spring tides; or
(b) the waters of any dock which is directly, or (by means of one or more other docks) indirectly, connected with any such waters.";

and the existing provisions of section 546 shall accordingly constitute subsection (1) of that section.'. — [Mr. David Mitchell.]

Mr. Wallace: I beg to move amendment No. 59, in page 69, line 47, at end insert—
'3A. After section 634A insert—

Matters to be considered by general lighthouse authority before closure, etc., of facilities operated by them


634B. — (1) Before bringing into effect any proposal which may result in a reduction in the number of persons to be employed or the hours of attendance to be worked at any lighthouse or lighthouse shore station a general lighthouse authority give written notice of any such proposal to the local authority within whose area the lighthouse shore station is situated and shall consider any representations received from that authority within a period of three months from the date of the notice.
(2) In formulating any proposal referred to in subsection (1) above the general lighthouse authority shall have regard to the desirability of enabling every employee to be made wholly or partly redundant by the proposal to continue to live and work in the same locality, and the notice to the local authority required by virtue of subsection (1) above shall specify what provision the general lighthouse authority propose to make by way of housing accommodation, financial assistance and retraining or, if the general lighthouse authority consider no such provision is necessary, their reasons for so deciding.
(3) "Local authority" for the purpose of the application of this section means in relation to—

(a) England and Wales, the council of a county;
(b) Scotland, the regional or islands council; and
(c) Northern Ireland, the district council."'.

The amendment would impose duties on the general lighthouse authorities before the closure of, or reduction in staff at, any of their lighthouses or light stations. It arises from the problem of automation of lighthouses and the closure of sound fog signals undertaken by the lighthouse authorities — principally by the one that concerns me, the Northern lighthouse board—in recent years.
Clearly there are many pressures on the lighthouse authorities to cut costs at present — from the Government and from shipowners who have to pay light dues. There was a considerable outcry when the light dues were increased a year go, and pressures to reduce costs have weighed heavily on the lighthouse authorities. The march of technology means that automation techniques, which have led to some staff being made redundant, have been implemented. My worry is about the consequences of the automation programme on the individuals concerned and the communities in which they live.

The problem is not unique to the United Kingdom. I understand that a programme in Canada has led to the automation of 85 of the 266 light stations there, and 230 men have been retired, retrained or reassigned. There are difficulties for the individuals involved. For many, it means giving up tied housing. Many may be in late middle age and find it difficult to retrain for new employment. It is also difficult to find employment. Many lighthouses are in remote parts of the country, where employment is not easy to find at the best of times, let alone at a time of high unemployment.

It is not easy for men to uproot themselves from communities in which they may have lived for a long time and brought up a family. There are also problems for the community. They are often remote and sparsely populated. It is proposed to automate the lighthouse on Bressay, which has a population of only 333. Taking one family from that community would have a significant impact. Fair Isle has a population of only 66. One lighthouse has already been automated, and the House will realise what an impact the removal of a family would have on that community. It would affect social life and mean

that the local authority would have greater difficulty in providing services, which would become more expensive per head of population.
Losing a keeper and his family and making local assistants redundant can have a devastating effect on a remote rural area. The process has been quiet. We are talking about the loss of one job here and two jobs there. While closures do not attract the same public attention as a pit or major steelworks closure, they can have a similar impact proportionately.
The amendment would impose a duty on the lighthouse authorities to give local authorities notice when they are about to implement a closure or reduce staffing. There is no such duty at present, but a lighthouse may be a listed building, which means that the local authority is brought in if it wishes to do anything with that building. That is the mechanism by which the local authority in my constituency has been alerted to a possible closure and the consequences for the local community.
The amendment asks the authorities to consider the impact of their actions on the community. It would allow a local authority, in conjunction with the board, to see what can be done to find alternative employment for those affected. It would also allow the local authority to draw attention to cases when, on grounds of safety, it believes a light should be saved.
There has been considerable resistance to demanning of lighthouses in British Columbia. An independent review found that one quarter of stations should be kept staffed. It also suggested that the role of coast watchers should be enhanced because there was a clear need for help for boaters and tourists in some remote areas. Drawing a proposed closure to the attention of a local authority would enable some local input to be made if there was a safety reason for keeping a lighthouse open.
The amendment would also give boards a statutory duty to have regard to social factors when they make a decision. I have had considerable correspondence and meetings with the northern lighthouse board about automation and closures, and particularly about its proposed closures in my consituency. In my experience, the commissioners are sensitive and aware of the impact of their decisions on communities, yet they come back to me and say, "That is not within our statutory remit. We cannot do anything about it. We are helpless. We have a statutory duty to supply a lighthouse service and our scope for action is circumscribed. We cannot take into account social considerations." The amendment would allow them to do so. It would trigger off consultation with local authorities.

The Under-Secretary of State, Lord Brabazon, told me in a letter that in areas such as my constituency, the Highlands and Islands Development Board is always on hand to provide help. I certainly welcome the work of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, but even if the Minister cannot accept the amendment — I certainly hope that he will—it would be very encouraging if he were to give some indication that the lighthouse boards would seek to make contact with local authorities, and that even if it were not a statutory duty they would do that as a matter of practice and that they would also make contact with boards such as the Highlands and Islands Development Board so that it would have good notice of


where there was likely to be redundancies and it would have advance warning so that it could take immediate action.
Subsection (2) of the amendment contains some things that we should like the lighthouse boards to do if there were proposals to close down a particular lighthouse. It would require them to redeploy any redundant employees in the locality, to provide housing for those who would lose their tied housing, and to make financial provision for redundant employees or to provide retraining.

As I have said, job opportunities could arise out of the closure of lighthouses. For example, some of the older lighthouses can become tourist attractions and can be converted into museums. That is a possibility for the Sumburgh lighthouse in my constituency. At Cape Spear, in Newfoundland, several jobs have been created in the locality by the Canadian parks taking over the lighthouse and making it into a culture centre and a museum. Such initiatives could be taken, and the local authorities could get in on the act very quickly if they had advance warning.

In regard to redundancy provision, the northern lighthouse board is considering the position of mobile keepers. Negotiations are in train with regard to seeking a small improvement in the agreed contractual redundancy provisions to take account of keepers losing housing. I understand that that will need the approval of the Secretary of State and I very much hope that when the time comes he will give his approval. However, that applies only to a small number of keepers—the mobile keepers. I would wish further consideration to be given to those who are in non-mobile grades who may also find themselves without work.

There are a number of automated lighthouse people who have been in the service for many years and who have found that they will not reach promotion to the rank of principal keeper, when three or four years ago they fully expected to retire at the grade of principal keeper and enjoy all the pension rights of that grade. In my constituency it is very unlikely that a certain keeper who otherwise might have expected to be promoted before retirement will be promoted. At a very late stage in his working life, he cannot look forward to the pension that he thought he would receive. The Government should address themselves to this situation, since lighthouse keepers will obviously lose out.

I should like to ask the Minister one specific question about Irish lights. It has been represented to me by lighthouse keepers that there were enhanced redundancy provisions for some of the keepers who were in the employment of the commissioners of Irish lights. Will the Minister confirm whether that was the case and whether any increment was given for which the Secretary of State gave approval?

Finally, there is the question, who pays? In his letter Lord Brabazon says that if the costs were to fall as a charge on the general lighthouse fund, it would increase the pressure to raise the light dues. The Government must face up to that problem. During the 1984–85 coal dispute the then Secretary of State for Energy, now Secretary of State for Wales, came to the Dispatch Box week after week and proudly announced enhanced redundancy provisions for those who were to lose their jobs in the mining industry and said that help would be given by means of British Coal Enterprise Ltd.

The scale of this problem is entirely different, but the impact on the communities involved will be almost the

same. We are dealing with communities. The loss of only a small number of jobs will have a great impact on communities where there is little alternative employment. The problem cannot be left just to the lighthouse boards, given their present financial structure. The Government must provide assistance for the many communities in the Highlands and Islands and in parts of Wales, England and Northern Ireland that are faced with a very real problem.

Mr. David Mitchell: I have listened very carefully to the arguments of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetlancl (Mr. Wallace) and I understand his motives, but the Government cannot support his amendment. I know that he has in mind the particular circumstances of lightkeepers in his constituency. The northern lighthouse board is the responsible authority, and I am sure that within the constraints of its statutory obligations to the mariner it has a proper concern for the interests of its employees.
The board hopes that a substantial element of necessary staff reductions can be achieved by natural wastage. During the last year, the board's redundancies within the hon. Gentleman's constituency have been limited to three persons, each in a separate location. It has no immediate plans for further compulsory redundancies, though a few more may be unavoidable in the longer term.
Given the very small numbers concerned, even allowing for the remoteness of some of the affected communities, I do not think that it would be practicable or desirable to impose the kind of duty on the general lighthouse authorities that the clause proposes. However, I shall follow up the hon. Gentleman's point and suggest to my noble friend in another place that he should ask the northern lighthouse board to advise local authorities, the Scottish Development Agency or the Highlands and Islands Development Board, as may be appropriate, and any other local enterprise agencies that may be operating in the area of any proposed redundancies. On the basis of that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to the Minister for his assurance, and I look forward to its implementation. I asked in particular about provision being made for redundancy, but as the hour is late, I suggest that the Minister should deal with that in correspondence.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 48, page 71, line 30, at end insert—

'MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT 1906 (c. 48)
Omit section 52 (provisions with respect to mortgages of ships sold to foreigners).'.
No. 53, in page 72, leave out lines 10 to 36 and insert—

Inspection and admissibility in evidence of copies of certain documents.

75A.—(1) Where under any enactment a document is open to public inspection when in the custody of the Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen—

(a) there may be supplied for public inspection a copy or other reproduction of the document instead of the original; but
(b) the original shall nevertheless be made available for public inspection if the copy or other reproduction is illegible.

(2) Where the Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen destroys any document which has been sent to him under or by virtue of any enactment, and keeps a copy or other reproduction of that document, then—

(a) any enactment providing for that document to be admissible in evidence or open to public inspection, and


(b) in the case of a document falling within subsection (1), that subsection,

shall apply to the copy or other reproduction as if it were the original.
(3) For the purposes of this section, and of section 695(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 in its application to documents in the custody of the Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen, a copy is to be taken to be the copy of a document nothwithstanding that it is taken from a copy or other reproduction of the original.'.
No. 10, in page 72, line 37, at end insert—
'In section 92 (unregistered British ships)—

(a) omit "British"; and
(b) after "employed in them," insert "or shall so extend in such circumstances as may be so specified, in either case".'.—[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Clause 49

NOTICES UNDER PART I OR II

Amendments made: No. 25, in page 42, line 32, after `49', insert—
'(1A) Any notice required or authorised to be served by the Secretary of State under Part I or II may be served by post.'.
No. 26, in page 42, line 36, leave out from 'which' to end of line 41 and insert
`a managing owner is for the time being registered under section 59(1) of the 1894 Act,'.
No. 27, in page 42, line 44, leave out from 'owners' to end of line 46.
No. 28, in page 42, line 46, at end insert—
`( ) For the purposes of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (service of documents by post) a letter containing—

(a) a notice to be served on any person in pursuance of subsection (1) above, or
(b) a notice required or authorised to be served under Part I on a representative person within the meaning of that Part,

shall be deemed to be properly addressed if it is addressed to that person at the address for the time being recorded in relation to him in the appropriate register; and a letter containing any other notice to which subsection (1A) above applies shall be deemed to be properly addressed if it is addressed to the last-known address of the person to be served (whether of his residence or of a place where he carries on business).'.
No. 29, in page 43, line 1, at end insert—
'"the appropriate register"—

(a) in relation to a notice in respect of a registered ship, means the register in which the ship is registered under Part I of the 1894 Act, and
(b) in relation to a notice in respect of a registered fishing vessel, means the register kept under Part II of this Act;'. —[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Clause 51

EXTENSION OF ACT TO OVERSEAS TERRITORIES

No. 13, in page 43, line 21, leave out 'exceptions, adaptations and'. —[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Clause 52

INTERPRETATION, MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS

No. 14, in page 43, line 44, at end insert—
'"modifications" includes additions, omissions and alterations;'. —[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Schedule 6

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS SEA FISHERIES ACT 1868 (c. 45)

Amendments made: No. 37, in page 74, line 35, at end insert—
`and the reference in that subsection to proceeding to sea shall, in a case where the service for which the ship is intended consists of going on voyages or excursions that do not involve going to sea, be construed as a reference to going on such a voyage or excursion.";'.
No. 38, in page 74, line 42, at end insert—
`3. In section 692 (enforcing detention of ship), at end add—
(5) Any reference in this section to proceeding to sea includes a reference to going on a voyage or excursion that does not involve going to sea, and references to sending or taking to sea shall be construed accordingly."'. —[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Schedule 7

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 54, in page 78, column 3, leave out lines 21 to 24.
No. 49, in page 80, column 3, leave out lines 13 to 17 and insert—
`Sections 51 and 52.'.
No. 55, in page 80, line 30, column 3, leave out 'Section 10.'.
No. 11, in page 80, line 43, column 3, at end insert—
'In section 92, the word "British".'.
No. 12, in page 81, column 3, leave out line 15 and insert—
`In section 37, subsection (4), and in subsection (6) the word "British".'. —[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Schedule 8

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS

Amendment made: No. 7, in page 82, line 41, at end insert—
'3A. Section 4 (5A) of this Act shall not have effect at any time before the commencement of Part II of this Act, and shall not affect the operation of section 12(3) of this Act in relation to fishing vessels which are registered under Part I of the 1894 Act immediately before the commencement of Part II of this Act.'. —[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time. —[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Mr. Robert Hughes: I repeat the welcome that my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) gave to the Government's two new clauses on cabotage. It was good to hear the Minister say that they were long overdue. We are grateful for their inclusion in the Bill, and we shall be happy to see them implemented when the Bill reaches the statute book.
We are disappointed that the Secretary of State was unable to accept our new clauses on industrial relations. However, we are glad that the Bill retains section 19 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1974. As time goes by, the Secretary of State may find that section 19 is used much


more frequently than it has been in the past. We are glad that that loophole has been left open and not closed in relation to section 42(2).
Some of my hon. Friends made a legitimate complaint about the hour at which we are discussing this extremely important legislation. Indeed, had we not been co-operative, we could have run the business through for a very long time, but we did not want to hold back progress on a Bill that we regard as necessary. I hope that the Government Whips and business managers will think very carefully in future about the timing of business on virtually the last day that we are here in Parliament—but I do complain about that. I will say, however, that when we have important business it is quite unnecessary for the Government to make statements that take up an hour of the House's time and delay the progress of a Bill unnecessarily. I hope that the necessary instructions will be relayed to the Home Secretary and the business managers.
Although we have rightly drawn attention to what we regard as deficiencies in the Bill—we would have liked its safety provisions to be stronger — we nevertheless accept that, in general terms, it was necessary, and we approve of the clauses dealing with registration and safety. I hope that the Minister will use the regulating powers that he has taken very strongly to protect the safety of those who sail in our ships, and of course the passengers who use them.
Despite our misgivings about some parts of the Bill, and our objections to the schedule, I do not intend to divide the House. We have made some progress. We shall watch the Government intently, and urge them to take action where it is necessary.
I hope that the Bill will prove an adequate measure to deal with merchant shipping. There is no doubt that, when we return to government, we shall make the necessary changes that we want to see. In the meantime, we accept what has been done, and hope that it will be carried out with expedition once it finally reaches the statute book.

Mr. David Mitchell: Hon. Members who served on the Committee, and those who have taken part in today's debate, can take some satisfaction in having participated in the passage of a Bill that moves ship registration into the 20th century, ensures high standards throughout British dependencies, incorporates many safety lessons learned so sadly at Zeebrugge, sets up the Merchant Navy Reserve, assists training and provides Her Majesty's Government with powers to move against unfair competition, both in cabotage and elsewhere.
At the same time, the measure will bring to an end unfair competition by Spanish fishing vessels in the United Kingdom quota from the EEC.
This is not the stuff of a great parliamentary occasion, but it is a worthwhile modernisation of our merchant shipping law, which will further the safety and prosperity of the industry. As such, I commend the Bill to the House.
Those who go down to the sea in ships, whether at work or as passengers, will in future be able to do so with more safety and security as a result of our activities here tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 10(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

FINANCIAL SERVICES

That the draft Financial Services Act 1986 (Stabilisation) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.
That the draft Financial Services Act 1986 (Investment Advertisements) (Exemptions) (No. 2) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.
That the draft Financial Services Act 1986 (Delegation) (No. 2) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.
That the Financial Services Act 1986 (Extension of Scope of Act and Meaning of Collective Investment Scheme) Order 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 496), dated 14th March 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th March, be approved.

PNEUMOCONIOSIS

That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 29th February, be approved.

LEGAL AID AND ADVICE (SCOTLAND)

That the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations, 1988, which were laid before this House on 17th March, be approved.
That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 17th March, be approved.

LEGAL AID AND ADVICE

That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1988, dated 8th March 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th March, be approved.
That the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1988, dated 8th March 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th March, be approved.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

That the Town and Country Planning (Compensation for Restrictions on Mineral Working) (Amendment) Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 7th March, be approved.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Question agreed to.

PETITION

Diego Garcia (Ilois Population)

Mr. Allen McKay: I wish to present a petition, Madam Deputy Speaker, with your leave and that of the House. It concerns the 2,000 Ilois of Diego Garcia, who were forcibly removed from their homeland a while ago to Mauritius and the Seychelles.
The petitioners require the Government to arrange a meeting between the Ilois and the representatives of Mauritius, to arrange the immediate return of the Bois to their homeland. They wish to be awarded compensation for the problems that have arisen since they left their homeland, and they wish the British Government to cease making the British Indian ocean territories available for military purposes.
I hope that the House will accept the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Playground Injuries

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, for being in his place to discuss with me the continuing flow of playground injuries to children. I have been fortunate in that my three children have passed through the age of playgrounds without incurring anything more severe than the usual bumps and bruises. My attention has been caught by the surprising and distressing number of families who have not been so lucky.
There is no doubt that transport, drownings and fires account for by far the greatest number of accidental dealths of children. Playground injuries are not as great a problem as accidents in the home, but they are not inconsiderable. Most importantly, they are probably avoidable.
"That's Life" has put together the tales of woe that have been reported to it in letters. To the end of February, it has been told of no fewer than 381 incidents of more than usual gravity. That figure includes the ghastly sum of five deaths, one case of severe brain damage, 34 fractured skulls, 49 other head injuries, including concussion, six broken collar bones, six broken legs, 40 broken arms, 11 other breakages including noses and jaws, two dislocations, one severe internal injury, 77 other injuries needing urgent medical attention, and 14 teeth-type injuries. In addition, there were 135 other incidents requiring medical attention. It is obvious that these are not all the incidents that have occurred, and is interesting to note that there appears to be no way of recording all the statistics, collating them or analysing them.
My hon. Friend will be aware that in 1978 the Department of the Environment sent a long and comprehensive letter to all district councils and local education authorities — it was made available to the chief executives of county councils — that told all involved in the public sector of the ways in which safety could be improved. British standard 5696 has been published since 1979. However, there is no way of knowing the improvement that has been achieved as a result of the advice.
It is significant that there was a massive response to the "That's Life" programme on playground accidents. It came throughout the country from parents whose children had sustained substantial damage in playgrounds. Each one is a tragic and pitiful tale of woe. It is significant also that the Consumers Association should be similarly preoccupied and concerned as a result of feedback. It is significant as well that there should have been a steady run of articles over the past nine years in all manner of publications, all expressing concern at the unacceptably high level of accidental injury in playgrounds. It seems, however, that despite advice, admonition, British standards and other responses, a high level of accidents continues to be sustained. That must be unacceptable.
Ministerial responsibility amounts to an interesting but confused position. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State represents the Department of Education and Science. As 125 of the 246 injuries communicated to the "That's Life" team occurred in school playgrounds, it is


understandable that he should be sitting on the Government Front Bench waiting to reply to this debate. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment with responsibilities for sport also has a locus in the problem. It is a pity that both my hon. Friends cannot respond to the debate, but that would not be in accord with our procedure in this place.
A goodly percentage of our playgrounds are owned and run by district councils, and the interesting deduction of the playground action group is that from 1982 to 1987 no fewer than 10 per cent. of reported playground accidents involving injury occurred to children within the ages of two to five years. I was also fascinated to note that 80 per cent. of the accidents occurred in supervised playgrounds — so it is certainly not a straightforward picture of unsupervised playgrounds and older children showing off. It is, possibly, largely outside the education service, in supervised playgrounds and with younger children.
There is yet another sector where accidents can occur —the private sector, at theme parks, motorway service centres or, as is increasingly the case, roadside diners or even pubs. Who has the responsibility in that sector? It is certainly not the Education or Environment Departments. It appears that there might be a Department of Employment remit under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which places a duty on employers at such sites to protect those who are accidently or otherwise on them. Once again, that shows that there are three Departments involved. The basic question is: with whom does the buck actually stop? Until we have the answer, we cannot promote better safety.
In 1978, the Department of the Environment took the lead in a circularised letter. I wonder what, if any, advice has been given since. Can the Secretary of State for Education and Science lean on local education authorities to heed the advice contained in the British standard on play surfaces and the design of equipment? Can local education authorities be sued for compensation in civil proceedings? If, since the pre-1979 British standard—that is, the letter of October 1978 —no further advice has been given to local education authorities, is it possible that they could not be guilty of negligence and are therefore unassailable?
Section 4.2.1 of British standard 5696 specifically and strongly recommends that impact-absorbing surfaces be provided in at least the operating area around the equipment. Yet in countless thousands of playgrounds throughout the country, concrete and tarmac are still the norm. What is my hon. Friend's view on that? It is, perhaps, no wonder that the Surrey-based charity Play Safely writes:
We are not satisfied that the existing legislation is adequate to compel managers of playgrounds to act with responsibility to protect children.
It referred to local representations that it had made about seven playgrounds that were left unattended and, consequently there was, "predictably, a tragic death."
What needs to be done is not difficult to establish, but the how is far more difficult. With regard to the "what" element, there is a need to encourage and cajole authorities and owners to keep their houses in order, to take the advice of the British standard and to bite the bullet on costs. I appreciate that expense is a problem, but authorities have a duty to sort out their priorities. I put it to them that they cannot put this responsibility lightly to one side. My authority has decided that it needs to deal

with that, and I note with interest that the cost for the sites averages about £3,000 each. I should like to think that a phased programme, covering three to five years and meticulously adhered to would be fully within the means of all authorities, provided that the will is there —and we need to put the will there. There is also no shortage of advice on the wide range of materials that are now so widely available, and they must be carefully considered by authorities at the same time.
The "how" is how can we persuade local authorities and local education authorities that this issue is a reasonable and proper priority. I found it interesting that the Germans, whose DIN standards are more detailed than even the British standard 5696, have an equipment safety law that makes it mandatory for both equipment and installation to comply with the DIN standards. That is possibly a piece of Teutonic heavy-handedness, but it does have merit and it is probably worth considering.
I know that there are those who would take a more cynical view and regard that country's legislation as old-fashioned and heavy-handed protectionism, designed to stop imported equipment being sold in Germany. Nevertheless, it means that there is leverage for ensuring that equipment and installations comply. In that respect, the Germans have an authority that is not dissimilar from our trading standards officers, who would police and monitor this operation.
I appreciate that in the United Kingdom British standards have always been advisory and to make compliance compulsory by statute would be an enormous departure from practice and would have enormous ramifications. However, we should look carefully at that prospect before discarding the plan. Is there some way in which the German model can be adapted in the case of playgrounds, without having to go down the road of mandatory compliance with all British standards? That is a fundamental question.
Bearing in mind the present split paternity of the problem, a co-ordinated approach to finding solutions needs to be developed. A lead Minister needs to be established from the three Departments involved. I do not care whether he or she comes from the Department of the Environment or the Department of Education and Science, but somebody has to be in the driving seat and take charge.
We should add to that a review group to be drawn from the three Ministries. The other agencies that I have mentioned would be able to keep pressure on the problem. Tasks for that group would include looking at existing legislation, especially in the light of the consequences of the Housing Act 1980, which withdrew so much of the advice given in the past to local authorities as to how they should deal with matters such as play space for children, and with the way in which they organised it.
The review group would also promote the action that would need to be taken to get impact-absorbing surfaces installed. It could possibly keep pressure on the British standards to extend the draft that defines those surfaces and the way in which they should be used. I must make the observation that with head injury being the main type of serious injury that is sustained, especially among the younger children, softer landings are vital.
The same review group would be able to keep the standards under review, see how they are working, and strive towards improving our own legislation, both in the


context of the United Kingdom and the European Community. That is important because, as time goes on, we must think in such terms more and more.
I am given to understand that there was recently an interesting conference in Brussels at which the United Kingdom was able to take an aggressive and leading part. If we were able to have such a review group, we would be able to continue to lead in that respect and to keep the pressure on the system to our own benefit.
I know that my hon. Friend regards this question with the gravity that it deserves, but I want to stress that in the solution that is to be developed, I do not want playgrounds to be created which are so safe that they are boring and unexciting. That would be unacceptable. There must be an element of excitement. However, I want parents to be able to have confidence — when they see their cherished children fizz off with glad abandon to the swings, slides and roundabouts—that they will not have to fear the consequences. There are things that we can do and we owe them to children and parents alike. We must not waste an hour or a day more.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): I am more than grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) for raising this matter for discussion. I am glad to see that he is supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) and for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown). It is an important topic and one well worthy of debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend on making an extremely serious speech, and I am more than willing to consider many of the points in it.
As my hon. Friend is aware, the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974 imposes duties on everyone concerned with the subject. In respect of injuries to children, the general duties under the Act have been supplemented by specific requirements laid down in the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985. Those regulations require that the appropriate enforcing local authority is notified immediately. Further to those statute law provisions, it is the responsibility of local education authorities to take reasonable care of pupils and students at schools and colleges in their charge within the "in loco parentis" doctrine enshrined in common law.
I am aware that there is concern for safety in the school playground, not least because of the points made by my hon. Friend and the media in general, and also because of the representations made to me and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The correspondence that we have received has advocated improvements to playground surfaces and safer playground equipment.
As my hon. Friend said, in 1978, the holder of the office of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment issued to all local authorities a circular letter entitled: "Need for Improved Safety in Children's Playgrounds". An attached technical appendix listed several possible stages for eliminating some of the most common causes of playground accidents and included details of some impact-absorbing surfaces for use underneath playground equipment. My Department sent

copies of that document to all chief education officers, inviting them to review their provision in school playgrounds.
I am aware that there has been a good deal of media coverage during the past year of several serious injuries to children who have fallen from playground apparatus on to a hard surface. However regrettable such accidents are, they will have brought to the attention of local authorities the possibility of installing alternative surfaces to the traditional tarmac and concrete. Some authorities are known to have installed impact-absorbing surfaces under climbing frames and other apparatus in park playgrounds, and also on a trial basis in some school playgrounds. But, as my hon. Friend said, it is recognised that an impact-absorbing surface cannot provide an absolute guarantee of safety.
Teachers and other helpers will normally be able to control the number of children using equipment at any one time and to give instructions in the sort of activity carried out for a child's proper physical development. Of course, it is for the school authorities to decide whether an item of equipment is used and whether to make local rules with regard to its use, for example, during and outside school hours respectively, and on the ages of the children who may be permitted to climb on the apparatus depending on its height above ground.
The Government hope that all new external play equipment installed will conform to the requirements of the "Specification for fixed playground equipment for schools"—BS 3191—and "Play equipment intended for permanent installations outdoors"—BS 5696—to which my hon. Friend referred. The latter generally refers to non-school playgrounds.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has no plans at present to introduce new legislation governing the installation of children's play apparatus or associated equipment. However, in addition to the current British standards to which I have just referred, the British Standards Institution is in the process of preparing a new standard for play equipment which is expected to be completed later this year. As my hon. Friend will know, British standards do not have statutory force but they do provide valuable and influential guidance on the subject areas to which they apply.
The House will accept that there is no one specific rule for the provision of playing fields and recreation areas at schools and colleges. Much depends on the number of pupils attending who are aged eight and over when determining such provision.
My hon. Friend made a number of important points about the nature of the relationship between Government Departments. They continue to monitor all health and safety aspects within the community. In recent months my Department has issued to local education authorities a guidance document on first aid arrangements in schools and colleges. This includes a reiteration of my Department's long-standing advice that all teachers should have a basic working knowledge of first aid that would enable them to deal with situations where medical or first aid treatment is necessary.

Mr. Shepherd: When the new standard is published will the Department positively circulate it to all schools? Will district councils be positvely circulated by the Department


of the Environment? Will the mechanism employed in 1978 be used again to bring the councils up to date and make certain that they are aware of the new standard?

Mr. Dunn: I certainly undertake to consider that. If the practice remains as it was some years ago we shall continue with it, but if there is any new departure in what my hon. Friend has suggested I shall commend it to my Department and to my colleagues at the Department of the Environment for consideration.
My hon. Friend has raised a number of important issues regarding the interface that a group of Departments

will have upon the same subject. I will undertake to raise those issues with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.
We all share my hon. Friend's opinion that the safety of our children is paramount. This has been a useful debate and I have learned a great deal. His constituents should be extremely pleased that he is able to represent their interests as well as those of the wider public.
I am determined to bring the nature of the debate to my right hon. Friend's attention so that we can consider what further progress can be made.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty three minutes past Two o'clock.